Skip to main content

Full text of "Adamantia. The truth about the South African diamond fields: or, A vindication of the right of the Orange Free State to the territory, and an analysis of British diplomacy and aggression which has resulted in its illegal seizure by the governor of the Cape of Good Hope"

See other formats 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2013 


http://archive.org/details/adamantiatruthabOOIind 


^  Q-yt 


KZs 


r~' 


ADAM  AN  TI  A. 

€\ft  €xut\)  about  tfre  Soutjj  African 
DiamDtto  jficttrs: 


A   VINDICATION   OF   THE    RIGHT    OF    THE    ORANGE    FREE    STATE    TO    THAT 

TERRITORY,    AND    AN   ANALYSIS    OF   BRITISH   DIPLOMACY   AND 

AGGRESSION   WHICH    HAS    RESULTED    IN    ITS    ILLEGAL 

SEIZURE   BY   THE    GOVERNOR   OF   THE 

CAPE   OF   GOOD    HOPE. 


BY 

CAPTAIN  AUGUSTUS  F.   LINDLEY, 

AUTHOR  OP  "  TAI  PING  TIEN  KWOH  :  THE   HISTORY  OF  THE  TAIPING  REVOLUTION 

"THEODORE'S  CASE;"    "  THE  LOG  OP  THE   'FORTUNA';"   ETC.,  ETC.,   ETC. 

■  J 


WHEN    THE   TRUE  NOTION    OF    JUSTICE    BECOMES    OBSCURED,    MATERIAL    FORCE 
TAKES   THE   PLACE   OF   RIGHT."—  PlUS   IX. 

"amittit  merito  proprium  qui  alienum  adpetit." — Phaedrus. 


LONDON : 
W.  H.  &  L.  COLLINGEIDGE,  ALDEESGATE  STEEET,  E.O. 

1873. 


LONDON : 

PRI2JTED  BY  W.   H.   AND  L.  COLLING  RIDGE, 

AZDERSGATE  STREET,   B.C. 


V  A 


•      ti    974 


PEEFACE. 


This  is  a  book  with  a  purpose.  Its  object  is  to  inform  the 
British  Parliament  and  the  British  public  how  their  Govern- 
ment has  robbed  the  Orange  Free  State  (one  of  the  two  South 
African  Republics)  of  its  diamond  fields. 

As  the  truth — and  especially  the  truth  in  political  affairs — is 
seldom  palatable,  I  may  expect  to  receive  a  certain  amount  of 
abuse ;  but  I  have  faith  in  the  strong  sentiment  of  justice  and 
"  fair-play  "  which,  it  is  to  be  hoped,  still  pervades  the  national 
character,  and  so  look  forward  with  confidence  to  obtain  the 
approval  of  many  who  may  venture  to  read  the  following  pages. 
Ay,  even  more.      I  have  the  temerity  to  hope  that  the  book 
may  do  some  good — that  it  may  help,  in  however  small  a  way, 
to  bring  about  the  rectification  of  the  great  wrong  it  is  its  object 
to  explain ;  for  surely  the  asserted  decline  of  England  cannot 
have  progressed  so  far  as  to  make  preposterous  the  expectation 
that,  whatever  case  may  be  submitted  to  the  British  Parliament 
and  people,  justice  will  be  rendered  in  spite  of  the  Administra- 
tion whose  policy,  as  in  this  matter,  has  been  illegal,  unrighte- 
ous, and  dishonourable. 

During  two  years  I  have  resided  within  the  plundered 
territory,  and  having  attentively  observed  the  progress  of 
political  events,  having  all  the  time  carefully  studied  the  merits 
of  the  case,  my  impressions  as  to  the  manner  in  which  the 
Orange  Free  State  has  been  treated  and  wronged  by  the  British 
Government,  and  especially  by  the  late  "irresponsible"  Govern- 
ment of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  and  Governors  Hay  and  Sir 


IV  PREFACE. 

H.  Barkly,  are  naturally  very  vivid.  If,  in  consequence,  I  may 
sometimes  make  use  of  expressions  more  forcible  than  moderate, 
or  occasionally  display  a  too  intemperate  zeal,  I  can  only  trust 
that  this  explanation,  and  the  fact  that  my  effort  is  solely  for 
the  cause  of  justice  and  England's  honour,  may  be  deemed  my 
excuse. 

Of  course,  if  the  sort  of  patriotism  expressed  by  the  Yankee 
toast — "  To  our  country  ;  may  she  always  be  right,  but,  right 
or  wrong,  our  country  " — be  virtuous,  then  are  my  sentiments 
immoral.  But  I  have  yet  to  learn  that  it  is  nobler  for  a  man 
to  approve  and  glory  in  his  country's  evil  deeds  than  to  feel 
indignant  at  them. 

As  an  Englishman,  I  am  jealous  of  England's  honour  and 
prestige,  and  rank  myself  with  those  who  hate  to  see  her  people 
blindly  dragged  into  a  petty,  cowardly,  and  unworthy  policy. 
I  do  not  like  to  know  how  timorously,  hastily,  eagerly  even,  the 
Alabama  Claims  were  conceded ;  whilst,  at  the  other  side  of  the 
world,  the  poor  little  Orange  Free  State  was,  at  the  very  same 
time,  so  arrogantly  bullied,  so  outrageously  maltreated.  It  has 
well  been  said  that  history  repeats  itself ;  and,  certes,  there  is 
one  lesson  it  may  well  teach  in  no  faltering  or  uncertain  tone — 
that  when,  like  ancient  Rome,  a  great  nation  thinks  only  of  its 
luxuries,  of  buying  off  its  enemies,  and  oppressing  the  very 
weakest  of  its  neighbours,  it  has  already  commenced  to  decline, 
to  fall  from  its  high  estate,  and  to  tread  the  downward  path 
whereon  the  same  principle — that  of  the  sword — by  which  it 
rose,  will,  in  turn,  be  most  ruthlessly  applied  to  itself.  "Whether 
this  be  the  result  of  a  divine  and  active  retributive  justice,  or 
the  regular  sequence  of  mere  natural  causes,  has  yet  to  be 
proved ;  but  the  result  is  assuredly  one  of  the  plainest  of  his- 
torical facts. 

This  is  the  thesis  of  the  following  work. 

Immediately  (in  1869)  the  fact  became  established  that 
diamonds  existed  on  the  banks,  and  to  the  south,  of  the  Vaal 
Biver,  the  Colonial  Government  at  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope, 
aided  and  supported  by  sundry  private  individuals,  entered  into 
a  selfish,  illegal,  and  dishonourable  combination  to  wrest  the 
diamond  fields  from  its  rightful  owner,  the  Free  State.     The 


PREFACE.  V 

motives  of  some  of  the  conspirators  were  undoubtedly  merely 
personal  and  mercenary — to  gain  land,  money,  diamonds,  fat 
offioes,  and  extensive  revenue  ;  some  were  also  inspired  with 
hatred  and  jealousy  (known  to  exist  in  certain  Colonial  circles) 
of  the  thriving  Free  State  ;  others,  probably  including  the 
several  Governors  mixed  up  in  the  affair,  no  doubt  acted,  at 
first,  in  good  faith :  but,  ignorant  of  the  merits  of  the  case, 
were  deceived  and  misled  by  their  advisers  and  coadjutors. 

I  shall  further  maintain  that  gross  misrepresentation  and  false 
evidence  has  been  persistently  supplied  to  the  British  Govern- 
ment by  the  late  Colonial  Administration,  the  last  and  present 
Governor.  That  for  many  years  the  territory  including  the 
diamond  fields  has  been  de  facto  and  cle  jure  part  of  the  Orange 
Free  State,  by  right  of  occupation  and  settlement,  by  right  of 
purchase  from  original  native  owners,  and  by  right  of  title 
actually  transferred  to  it  by  the  British  Government  in  1854  ! 
That  the  petty  Griqua  Chief,  Waterboer,  ostensibly  for  and 
through  whom  the  Governor  of  the  Cape  (Sir  H.  Barkly)  seized 
the  diamond  fields,  has  not  and  never  did  have  any  right  or  title 
whatsoever.  Moreover,  I  shall  show  that,  upon  the  strength  of 
this  trumped-up  claim,  the  British  Colonial  authorities  absolutely 
dared,  pendente  lite,  by  perpetrating  a  hostile  invasion  by  armed 
force  in  time  of  profound  peace,  to  enter,  seize  upon  (in 
November,  1871),  and  ever  since  hold  possession  of  a  large 
tract  of  the  Orange  Free  State  (including  the  diamond  fields) ; 
so  that  they  were  determined  to  have  the  precious  stones  and 
whatever  emoluments  might  ensue  in  the  way  of  land,  revenue, 
and  offices,  even  although  it  had  not  been  proved  that  their 
claimant,  puppet,  man  of  straw,  was  entitled  to  the  land, 
although  it  might  eventually  appear  that  it  really  belonged 
to  its  actual  possessor,  the  Free  State,  and  although  their 
every  act  might  be  neither  more  nor  less  than  illegal  inva- 
sion and  enjoyment — in  other  words,  legal  brigandage,  fili- 
bustering ! 

Above  all,  I  shall  prove  beyond  question  that,  whereas 
Governor  Sir  H.  Barkly  was  solely  authorized  by  the  Imperial 
Government  to  proclaim  and  annex  the  diamond  fields,  or  the 
so-called  "  Griqualand  West,"  "to  the  Cape  Colony"  by  and  with 


VI  PREFACE. 

f6 the  consent  of  the  Cape  Parliament"  after  the  passing  of  a 
"formal  Act"  for  that  purpose,  and  that  he  should  then  only 
annex  such  territory  as  "  really  belonged  "  to  Waterboer,  ho 
actually  had  the  temerity  to  seize  and  forcibly  take  possession 
of  part  of  the  Free  State,  in  direct  violation  of  those  distinct 
conditions  and  commands  in  his  commission!  The  Cape  Parlia- 
ment positively  refused  its  assent  to  any  such  scheme,  and  the 
Government  bill  to  accomplish  the  above  conditions,  by 
making*  the  filibustering  and  unwarrantable  seizure  of 
the  territory  in  advance  a  legal  act,  having  been  finally  re- 
pudiated and  withdrawn  in  the  Cape  Parliament  on  the  7th 
of  June,  1872. 

From  all  charges,  accusations,  and  censures  upon  the  policy 
and  transactions  in  question,  I  must  specially  exempt  the  newly- 
elected  responsible  Government  of  the  Cape,  also  the  Parliament 
and  people  of  the  Colony. 

That  the  British  people  and  Parliamentary  representatives 
are  unaware  of  these  transactions,  I  am  confident.  That  the 
narration  may  help  to  excite  their  indignation,  amazement,  and 
repudiation  of  the  unrighteous  acts,  together  with,  possibly, 
compensation  to  the  wronged  and  injured  state,  I  most  sincerely 
trust. 

I  have  taken  the  adverse  view  of  Waterboer's  case  and  the 
motives  of  his  interested  supporters  because  there  did  not  exist 
any  other  course  for  the  sane  and  veracious  historian ;  because  a 
defence  would  be  the  support  of  fraud,  perjury,  and  brigandage ; 
and  because,  above  all,  it  is  my  firm  and  conscientious  con- 
viction that  right  in  toto  is  on  the  side  of  the  Orange  Free 
State,  to  whose  cause,  therefore,  I  have  devoted  my  time  and 
labour. 

From  a  controversy  I  have  lately  had  with  the  Standard  and 
Mr.  E.  N.  Fowler,  M.P.,  it  seems  that  there  actually  exists  a 
small  party  of  politicians  who  defend  the  illegal  and  dishonour- 
able acts  of  Governor  Barkly,  Her  Majesty's,  and  the  late  Cape 
Governments  in  this  matter,  upon  the  plea,  forsooth,  that  the 
Free  State  has  badly  treated  the  native  tribes  around  it — lias 
not  fulfilled  to  the  letter  the  Shibboleth  of  fanatical  Exeter  Hall 
negrophiles ! 


PEEFACE.  Vll 

In  a  letter  which  appeared  in  the  Standard  of  December  14th, 
1872,  Mr.  E.  N.  Fowler,  M.P.,  chose  to  assert  that  the  Orange 
Free  State 

"  has  violated  every  principle  of  justice  in  its  dealings  with  its 
neighbours ; " 

and  offered  to 

"  maintain  that  the  conduct  of  that  state  has  forced  on  Lord  Kimberley 
the  duty  of  protecting  the  feeble  tribes  which  have  suffered  from  their 
cruel  aggressions." 

In  the  Standard  of  December  18th  I  challenged  Mr.  Fowler 
to  prove  his  words ;  denying  them,  meanwhile,  as  utterly  un- 
founded both  in  letter  and  in  spirit.  Yery  prudently,  he  declined 
the  challenge,  refused  to  make  good  his  accusations,  upon  the 
plea  that  he  would  not  enter  into  a  controversy  in  the  columns 
of  the  Standard,  although  he  had  first  used  those  columns  as  a 
medium  to  disseminate  his  calumnious  assertions. 

As  far  as  Mr.  Fowler's  logic  may  be  applied  to  Waterboer's 
Griquas,  and  the  seizure  of  the  diamond  fields,  the  following 
pages  will  perhaps  dispose  of  the  matter. 

By  some  inscrutable  process  of  ratiocination  Mr.  K>.  N.  Fowler 
declares  that,  because  of  the  Free  State  dealings  with  the  Basutos, 
Lord  Kimberley  was  forced  to  protect  the  Griquas  (a  course  by 
which  the  Free  State  has  been  shamefully  robbed,  and  the 
treaty  with  that  State  has  been  deliberately  violated) .  In  the 
first  place,  the  Basuto  question  has  nothing  at  all  to  do  with 
the  case,  nor  has  Earl  Kimberley  used  it  as  his  justification. 
Secondly,  Mr.  Fowler's  premises  are  utterly  false.  He  evaded 
my  challenge,  but  yet  professed  his  willingness  to  maintain  his 
position  in  the  House.  I  am  quite  prepared,  and  shall  be  happy 
to  supply  any  member  of  Parliament  with  ample  official  evidence 
to  refute  his  calumnious  allegation, — that  the  Free  State  has 
perpetrated  "  cruel  aggressions  "  upon  the  Basutos  and  certain 
"  feeble  tribes."  Such  an  accusation  is  sufficient  proof  of  Mr. 
Fowler's  profound  ignorance,  not  only  of  the  history  of  the 
Orange  Free  State,  but  of  the  Basutos,  other  Kafir,  and  Griqua 
tribes  of  South  Africa.  It  is  evident  that,  from  his  own  inner 
consciousness,  Mr.  Fowler  has  evolved  the  "noble  savage,"  the 
Basutos ;  and  that  his  erroneous  conclusions  are  very  far  indeed 


Vlll  PREFACE. 

from  being  deduced  from  nature  and  experience.      Well  has  a 
public  writer  lately  observed — 

"An intentional  falaehood  generally  defeats  itself,  and  its  mischief 
is  confined  .  .  .  Inaccuracy  and  its  brood  of  evils  reach  much  further  ; 
for  inaccuracy,  in  the  great  majority  of  cases,  originates  not  in  an  in- 
tellectual, but  a  moral,  habit,  and  may  be  a  concession  to  prejudice  or 
bias— mi  unconscious  determination  to  see  things,  not  as  they  are,  but  as 
inclination  would  fain  fashion  them." 

I  have  several  times  visited  South  Africa,  have  spent  some 
years  in  travelling  amongst  and  writing  upon  its  various  States 
and  native  tribes,  and  the  above  is  the  most  charitable  con- 
struction I  can  put  upon  Mr.  Fowler's  extreme  inaccuracies. 

To  all  in  the  slightest  degree  acquainted  with  South  African 
affairs,  it  is  a  notorious  fact  that  the  Basutos  always  have  been 
most  dangerous  neighbours,  perhaps  the  greatest  robbers, 
murderers,  and  marauders  of  all  the  Kafir  tribes,  denounced  in 
1851  by  Governor  Sir  Harry  Smith  as  "  the  most  merciless  and 
irreclaimable  savages,"  when  hostilities  broke  out ;  whilst,  in 
1853,  Governor  Sir  George  Cathcart,  then  on  his  march  to 
attack  the  Basutos  again,  aptly  described  them  as  "  a  nation  of 
thieves."  All  the  surrounding  native  tribes,  Natal,  the  Cape 
Colony,  the  Orange  Eiver  Sovereignty,  and  latterly,  the  Orange 
Free  State,  have  suffered  from  the  raids  and  aggressions  of  the 
Basutos,  and  all  have  been  frequently  driven  to  take  up  arms  in 
self-defence.  Indeed,  from  the  Blue  Books  on  the  subject  (1850 
to  1855),  it  appears  plain  enough  that  the  expenses  and  troubles 
caused  by  the  Basutos,  and  which  culminated  in  the  war  of 
1853,  were  really  the  reasons  which  induced  the  British  Govern- 
ment to  abandon  the  Orange  Eiver  Sovereignty,  and  abandon 
also,  to  the  tender  mercies  of  the  Basuto  barbarians,  the  white 
settlers,  whom  they  were  accustomed  to  butcher  and  plunder  as 
their  legitimate  prey.  The  obliquity  of  mental  vision  by  which 
Mr.  E.  N.  Fowler  has  mistaken  the  peaceful,  pastoral,  industri- 
ous inhabitants  of  the  Free  State,  for  the  perpetrators  of  those 
"  cruel  agressions "  upon  "feeble  tribes,"  and  every  one  else 
who  ever  came  within  their  reach — the  sanguinary  and  maraud- 
ing Basutos — really  constitutes  a  most  remarkable  and  abnormal 
psychological  phenomenon.     My  object  in  noticing  Mr.  Fowler's 


PREFACE.  IX 

unsupported  ipse  dixit  and  private  opinion  is  simply,  in  advance, 
to  dispute  any  such  absurd  defence  of  the  policy  pursued  by 
!Earl  Kimberley  and  his  colleagues  towards  the  Free  State. 

It  will,  no  doubt,  be  asked  by  many,  What  does  England 
gain  by  the  robbery  of  the  diamond  fields  ?  Nothing,  I  venture 
to  reply,  but  dishonour,  obloquy,  and  hatred ;  loss  of  prestige 
and  respect  in  one  of  those  Colonial  centres  where  a  course  of 
wise,  just,  and  honourable  policy  would  ensure  an  early  con- 
federation of  States  to  the  future  strength,  glory,  and  perpetuity 
of  the  British  Empire.  The  policy  of  wronging  the  two 
independent  South  African  States  alienates  thousands  of  white 
colonists,  and  inspires  thousands  more  with  detestation  for  such 
mean,  incapable  statecraft ;  yet  it  is  in  the  great  extent,  and 
the  prosperity,  sympathy,  of  her  colonies  that  England  should 
possess  a  more  powerful  element  of  longevity  than  ever  nation 
did  before ;  whilst  a  policy  of  propitiation  and  consolidation  of 
those  colonies  should  insure  her,  as  it  were,  against  the  decay 
which  has  ever  overtaken  the  great  powers  of  the  past. 

The  expense  of  trying  to  govern  the  diamond  fields  absorbs 
whatever  revenue  is  derived  from  them.  The  diamonds,  too, 
are  becoming  exhausted,  and  it  may  not  be  long  before  the 
migratory  digging  population  retires  to  whence  it  came,  leaving 
only  the  barren  plains  of  Adamantia,  and  Waterboer's  two 
hundred  semi- savages,  as  this  last  proposed  appanage  of  the 
British  crown.  Meanwhile,  arbitration  and  compensation  loom 
ominously  near  at  hand. 

In  concluding  this  introduction,  I  would  point  out,  as  "  fair 
play  "  has  long  been  appropriated  as  the  national  characteristic 
of  Englishmen,  and  as  they  have  agreed  to  pay  three  millions 
and  a  half  in  the  Alabama  case,  through — what  ? — superfluous 
generosity  or  fear  ? — that  they  should  now,  from  motives  of 
fair  play  and  justice,  after  restoring  to  the  Orange  Free  State 
the  land  of  which  it  has  been  plundered,  pay  to  it  a  propor- 
tionate and  equitable  money  compensation. 

The  efforts  of  Sir  H.  Barkly  and  his  late  irresponsible 
Government  having  failed  to  secure  the  annexation  of  the 
diamond  fields  to  the  Cape,  their  latest  scheme  to  retain  that 
territory   has   taken  the   form   of   an   attempt  to   induce    her 


X  PBEFACE. 

Majesty's  Government  to  declare  it  a  new  and  distinct  Crown 
Colony ;  wliilst  arbitration  is  in  course  of  negotiation  ;  before  it 
is  known  or  proved  that  the  land  does  not  belong  to  the  Free 
State,  but  to  Waterboer,  upon  the  sole  authority  of  whose 
concession  of  that  which  he  never  possessed  it  has  been  seized 
upon  vi  et  armis  ! 

Against  the  approval  or  ratification  of  this  proposed  Act  I 
would  presume  especially  to  warn  the  British  Parliament  and 
people,  as  it  would  be  illegal  and  unjust,  in  the  highest  sense 
degrading  to  a  great  nation,  and  would  assuredly  prove  a  prolific 
cause  of  serious  future  troubles,  arbitrations,  and  compensation. 

Some  may  disapprove  the  animadversions  passed  in  plain 
terms  upon  sundry  officials  in  the  following  pages ;  they  may 
not  like  the  book,  but  then,  nevertheless,  I  boldly  venture  to 
affirm,  it  is  true. 

AUGUSTUS  F.  LINDLEY. 


February  3rd,   1873. 

3,  Lloyd  Squaiie,  London,  W.C. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER   I. 

PAUE. 

Early  History. — Settlement  of  Koranas  and  Kafirs       .  .  . .        1 


CHAPTER  II. 

Early  History  continued. — Settlement   of  the   Griquas,    and 
Dutch,  or  Emigrant  Earmers    .  .  .  .  . .  . .  16 


CHAPTER   III. 

British  Intervention  North  of  the  Orange  River ;  Creation  of 
an  Orange  River  Sovereignty  ;  its  Abandonment ;  Origin  of 
the  Orange  Eree  State    . .  . .  . .  . .  . .  .  .     40 


CHAPTER   IV. 

Anti-boer  Policy  of  the  English  and  Colonial  Governments. — 
Progress  of  Political  Events  in  the  Free  State. — Waterboer's 
First  and  Only  Territory  South  of  the  Vaal    . .  . .  . .     59 


CHAPTER    V. 

Sale  of  the  Campbell  Lands  and  Remaining  Portions  of  Adam 
Kok's  Territory  to  the  Orange  Free  State ;  Hegira  of  the 
Southern  Griquas  .  .  . .  . .  . .  . .  87 


XU  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTEE   71. 

Concerning  Waterboer's  and  the  Free  State's  Claims  to  the 
Campbell  Lands,  1863 — 70,  including  the  "Meeting  at 
Nooitgedacht"  of  the  Griqua  and  Free  State  Governments. .   104 

CHAPTEE   VII. 

Analysis  of  the  Oral  Evidence  Adduced  at  the  Meeting  at 
Nooitgedacht,  by  the  Government  of  the  Orange  Free  State  119 

CHAPTEE  VIII. 

Analysis  of  the  Documentary  Evidence  Produced  by  Water- 
boer,  at  the  Meeting  at  Nooitgedacht,  in  Support  of  his 
Claim  to  the  former  Territory  of  the  late  Cornelius  Kok     . .    152 

CHAPTEE  IX. 

Analysis  of  the  Documentary  Evidence  Produced  by  Water- 
boer,  at  the  Meeting  at  Nooitgedacht,  in  support  of  his 
Claim  to  the  former  Territory  of  the  late  Cornelius  Kok, 
continued  .  .  .  .  . .  .  .  . .  .  .  . .   170 


CHAPTEE  X. 

Documentary  Evidence  produced  by  the  Government  of  the 
Orange  Free  State,  at  the  Meeting  at  Nooitgedacht,  in  proof 
of  their  Eight  to  Adamantia     . .  200 

CHAPTEE  XL 

The  Government  of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope  takes  part  with 
Waterboer,  endorses  his  Claims,  and  Supports  his  Case 
against  the  Orange  Free  State  . .  . .  . .  .  .   233 

CHAPTEE  XII. 

Analysis  of  the  False  Evidence  by  which  the  late  Colonial 
Government  sought  to  Justify  its  Support  of  Waterboer, 
its  Designs  on  the  Diamond  Fields,  and  its  Violation  of  the 
Eights  and  Territory  of  the  Orange  Free  State         . .  .  .    258 


CONTENTS.  Xlll 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

Progress  of  the  Colonial  Government's  Scheme  to  Annex  the 
Diamond  Fields  belonging  to  the  Orange  Free  State  ;  and 
Analysis  of  the  False  Evidence  on  which  that  Government 
acted.        . .  . .  . .  .  .  '  *  . .  . .  •  •   286 

CHAPTER   XIV. 

Consummation  of  the  Colonial  Government's  Scheme,  Invasion 
of  the  Free  State,  and  Forcible  Seizure  of  the  Diamond 
Fields. — The  Cape  Parliament  repudiate  and  reject  the 
Annexation :  the  Governor's  consequent  Plot  to  make  the 
Captured  Territory  a  Crown  Colony    .  .  . .  . .  .  .   312 

CHAPTER  XV. 

A  Review  of  the  Official  Correspondence  between  the  British, 
Cape,  and  Free  State  Governments  respecting  the  arbitration 
offered  to  the  latter  in  the  matter  of  its  right  to  the  Camp- 
bell lands  and  South  Adamantia  . .  .  .  .  .  . .   349 

CHAPTER  XYI. 

The  Line  from  Ramah,  via  David's  Graf,  to  Platberg,  and  how 
it  has  been  tampered  with,  altered,  and  perverted,  by  Sir 
H.  Barkly  and  his  Colleagues,  in  order  to  obtain  possession 
of  the  famous  "  Dry  Diggings."  Unpopularity  of  Sir 
H.  Barkly's  Government  at  the  diamond  fields  . .  .  .   393 


ERRATA. 

age     4,  Hue  19,                              ,,  "stocks" 

,,     "flocks" 

„     20,  last  line,                           ,,  "cliara" 

,,     "claim" 

„      26,  head  line,                          „  "  Griqa " 

,,     "  Griqua" 

,,      43,  line   9,                            for  "  boers,  the," 

read  "  the  boers  " 

,,      66,  last  line,                           ,,  "jusitfication 

"  ,,     "  justification 

„    153,  line  30,                              ,,  "this" 

„     "it" 

„     206,    „     20,                               ,,  "from" 

„     "of" 

„     215,    „     22,                               „  "F." 

,,     "Farms" 

,,    225.    .,    34,                                 delete? 

„    241,    ,,      8  (right  column),  „  "nor" 

,,     "not" 

.,    241,    „     10,      „          „           „  "to" 

,,     "or" 

,,    266,    ,,26,                              ,,  "distrfct" 

,,     "  district" 

,,    298,    „    32,                              ,,  "  give" 

,,     "given" 

„    360,    „     11,                              ,,  "dromptly" 

,,     "  promptly" 

MAPS  AND  DIAGRAMS. 


TO    FACE   PAGE. 

Diagram  A,  Map  of  "  Adamantia"         . .  . .  .  .  . .       1 

„       B,  Adam  Kok's  Boundaries  (1846)  . .     44 

„       0,  The  Vetberg  Line  (1855) 83 

,,  D,  Territory  claimed  for  Waterboer,  and  forcibly 
wrested  from  the  Orange  Free  State  by  Sir 
H.  BarMy,  Governor  of  the  Cape         .  .  . .   327 

,,  E,  Territory  allotted  to  David  Dantzer  and  other 
petty  Chiefs,  between  Pniel  and  Platberg,  by 
Sir  Harry  Smith  (1849— 52) 335 

,,  F,  Mr.  De  Yilliers'  Survey  of  the  Line  from  Eamah 
via  David's  Graf  to  Platberg,  seized  as  Water- 
boer's  by  Sir  H.  Barkly 393 

, ,       G,  Mr.  Geo.  Gilfillan's  Survey  of  the  Line  from  Eamah 

vid  David's  Graf  to  Platberg  (1871)     . .  . .   397 

„       H,  Mr.  Francis  H.  Orpen's  Survey  of  ditto  (1872)  . .  399 


ADAMANTIA. 


CHAPTER   I. 

Early  History.    Settlement  of  Koranas  and  Kafirs. 

An  Ancient  Terra  Incognita. — It  suddenly  becomes  Famous — 
The  Cause  being  the  Discovery  of  Diamonds. — Extent  of  the 
Diamond  Fields. — Possession  Disputed. — Tocography  of  the 
Territory  in  Dispute. — Physical  Features  thereof. — Bush- 
men the  Aborigines. — Adamantia  otherwise  Uninhabited  when 

first  known. incursions  of  koranas  and  hottentots. their 

Origin. — The  best  Claim  to  the  Disputed  Territory. — State- 
ment    OF     THE      KORANA      PARAMOUNT      CHIEF,     MASSAU      ElJT 

Taaibosch. — Protest  of  the  Chief  and  his  Councillors. — 
Declaration  of  principal  Barolong  and  Batlaping  Kafir 
Chiefs  in  support. 

There  exists,  far  in  the  interior  of  Central  South 
Africa,  some  seven  hundred  miles  from  the  sea,  a  large 
tract  of  land,  which,  from  the  mists  of  an  obscurity  as 
old  as  its  creation — from  an  utterly  unknown  and 
insignificant  existence  during  those  thousands  of  years 
— has  suddenly  become  famous.  Into  such  fame, 
indeed,  has  this  erstwhile  veritable  terra  incognita 
arisen,  that  now,  during  the  space  of  three  short  years, 
the  wondrous  stories  which  are  told  of  it — and  which 
read  more  like  old-world  fables,  or  tales  from  the 
Arabian  Nights,  rather  than  records  of  these  matter-of- 


Z  EFFECT   OF   DIAMOND   DISCOVERY. 

fact  modern  days — have  been  bruited  abroad  to  every 
point  of  the  compass,  and  have  been  wafted  to  even 
the  uttermost  ends  of  the  earth. 

Where,  less  than  half  a  decade  ago,  an  almost  un- 
broken solitude  prevailed,  a  great  population  has  ap- 
peared, as  if  by  magic.  Those  silent,  desolate  wastes, 
untrodden,  in  the  past,  save  at  very  rare  and  distant 
intervals  by  some  wretched,  wandering  bushman, 
scarcely  more  akin  to  humanity  than  the  great  herds 
of  wild  animals  around  him,  and  which  only  sought 
such  arid  plains  whilst  fleeing  from  an  even  more 
burning  drought  still  further  in  the  interior,  now  echo 
incessantly  the  noise  of  a  great  multitude.  And  where, 
at  a  few  widely -separated  spots,  along  the  courses  of 
the  far-apart  -rivers,  or  at  the  occasional  fountains, 
could  be  formerly  found  an  utterly  isolated  Dutch 
boer,  or  farmer ;  there  now  exists  the  greatest  popula- 
tion, the  greatest  gathering  of  both  whites  and  blacks 
in  South  Africa  ! 

*  The  region  which  has  experienced  this  sudden  and 
/  stupendous  change  is,  however,  none  other  than  that 
/  known  as  Adamantia,  or  the  South  African  Diamond^ 
\  Fields. 

The  worship  of  Mammon,  the  almost  universal  pas- 
sion for  wealth, — especially  for  riches  to  be  rapidly 
obtained — explains  the  seeming  miracle  very  easily  and 
satisfactorily. 

Just  as  thousands  flocked  to  the  gold  fields  of  Cali- 
fornia and  Australia,  so  fled  they  to  the  desert  spot  in 
Central  South  Africa,  where  the  glittering  diamond 
was  to  be  obtained  in  unusual  quantities  for  the 
seeking. 

Extending  for  many  miles  (at  least  two  hundred  as 


EXTENT   OF   THE   DIAMOND   FIELDS.  S 

positively  known  to  contain  diamonds)  along  the  Vaal 
river,  upward,  from  its  junction  with  South  Africa's 
largest  river,  the  Orange,  this  territory  stretches  along 
both  banks  of  the  former.  Its  extent  to  the  north,  or, 
more  accurately,  north-west  of  the  Vaal,  is  very  limited 
at  present,  and  mostly  confined  to  the  immediate 
vicinity  of  the  river ;  but  nothing  is  yet  known  as  to 
the  character  and  value  of  the  ground  even  twenty 
miles  away.  Thirty  miles  south  of  the  Vaal  are  the 
famous  "  dry  diggings,"  in  four  separate  spots,  forming 
a  cluster  pretty  close  together,  within  a  mile  or  so  of 
each  other. 

No  sooner  had  the  fact  that  diamonds  existed  in 
these  parts  become  established  than  two  rival  claimants 
suddenly  appeared  in  the  field  to  dispute  the  ownership 
of  the  hitherto-despised  and  ever-neglected  ground. 
What  had  always  been  of  as  little  importance  to  the 
world  in  general,  and  the  nearest  states  in  particular, 
as  if  it  had  never  existed,  was  now  destined  to  become 
the  subject  of  a  very  serious  controversy,  and  nearly 
the  scene  of  a  sanguinary  conflict  between  the  coloured 
natives  and  the  three  nej^hbcarrj.ng_c^ojiies_Qf .  whites. 
""The  territory  in  dispute,  extending  from  the  junc- 
tion of  the  Vaal  and  Modder  rivers  (a  point  about 
twenty-five  miles  above  the  junction  of  the  Vaal  and 
the  Orange)  about  100  miles  up  the  course  of  the  first- 
named  stream,  stretched  out  both  to  the  north  and 
south  of  it,  some  forty  miles  in  each  direction,  embrac- 
ing the  whole  of  the  known  diamondiferous  localities, 
and  including,  roughly,  an  area  of  10,000  square 
miles. 

The  centre  of  this  oblong  region  is  situated  in  about 
lat.  28°  40 J  S.,  and  long.  25°  E.,  close  to  a  bend  of  the 

B 


4  ASPECT   OF   COUNTRY. 

Vaal,  which,  with  many  serpentine  twists  and  turns, 
runs  mostly  through  its  middle.  Its  length,  according 
also  with  the  main  direction  of  the  river,  extends  from 
S.W.  to  N.E. ;  its  breadth  from  N.W.  to  S.E. 

It  is  bounded  on  the  S.E.  by  the  Orange  Free  State; 
on  the  N.E.  by  the  Trn.nsva.al  Republic  and  various 
Kafir  tribes ;  on  the  N.W.  by  Kafirs  and  Koranas ; 
on  the  S.W.  by  the  Griquas,  or  Bastards,  under  the 
chief  Waterbocr.  These  boundaries  are  quite  accu- 
rate enough  for  all  purposes  of  argument  and  descrip- 
tion, the  only  exceptions  being  where,  here  and  there, 
the  bounding  nations  may  be  a  little  within  the  four 
straight  lines  of  the  right-angled  oblong  defined  as  the 
topographical  diagram  of  the  district. 

The  whole  of  this  region  comprises  one  of  the  most 
barren,  unrelieved,  and  uninviting  stretches  of  country 
it  has  ever  been  my  lot  to  behold.  Until  diamonds 
were  discovered,  its  only  possible  use  was  to  support , 
at  a  few  parts,  the  great  stocS^i^sheep  belonging  to 
the  solitary J^utch^  boers  to  be  found  within  Jts  wilds. 
Its  soil,  nourishing  a  scanty  and  coarse  grass  in  de- 
tached tufts,  a  few  straggling  bushes  of  a  low,  utterly 
burnt-up  appearance,  known  as  "  Vaal  bush,"  with,  at 
very  rare  intervals,  a  small  and  stunted  specimen  of 
that  most  hideous  and  useless  of  all  exogenous  stems,  the 
South  African  thorn-tree,  consists  of  a  dry  red  sand 
thinly  spread  upon  an  original  surface  of  solid  trap 
rock  and  shale.  The  low  hills  breaking  the  level  of 
these  arid  plains  present  a  shining  surface  of  bare  rock 
to  the  sun's  burning  rays.  Nature,  in  this  ill-favoured 
land,  possesses  not  one  solitary  beauty  to  elevate  and 
lease  the  mind  of  man.  At  a  very  few  of  the  Dutch 
omesteads  therein,  a  solitary  thorn-tree  can  be  found 


TEMPESTUOUS   WEATHER.  5 

near  the  door,  and  in  such  cases  the  inhabitants  are 
not  a  little  proud  of  their  treasure.  This  is  the  one 
thing  to  break  the  utter  desolation  of  the  monotonous 
landscape.  Day  after  day,  month  after  month,  year 
after  year — -ay,  generation  after  generation — that  ugly 
tree  is  the  only  object  in  nature  for  those  far-isolated 
people  to  gaze  upon.  Fortunately,  their  feelings  and  per- 
ceptions are  not  of  the  keenest,  and  so  they  manage  to 
live  on,  uncomplaining,  and,  I  verily  believe,  satisfied. 
The  aspect  of  this  region  always  gave  me  the  idea  of 
what  Gustave  Dore*  would  represent  as  some  weirdly 
desolate  scene  in  an  unfinished  world. 

During  nine  months  of  the  year,  this  charming 
country  is,  almost  daily,  either  the  theatre  of  terrific 
tempests  of  wind,  hail,  rain,  thunder  and  lightning  of 
a  fearfully  intense  and  unequalled  power,  or  it  is  swept 
over  by  strong  hot  winds  from  the  burning  desert,  at 
no  great  distance  to  the  north-west.  In  the  former 
case,  so  great  is  the  elemental  strife  that  one  can  half 
imagine  the  destruction  of  the  world  itself  is  immi- 
nent ;  in  the  latter  you  cannot  feel,  or  see,  or  think  of 
anything  but  intolerable  heat  and  sand — sand  being 
everywhere,  in  your  mouth,  eyes,  and  ears ;  above, 
around,  beneath,  and  forming  a  dense  red  bank  en- 
compassing the  horizon ;  a  lurid  glare  prevails,  whilst, 
ever  and  anon,  with  a  terrific  rush  and  moaning,  a 
huge  pillar  of  sand,  reeling  ^heavily  to  and  fro, 
sweeps  madly  through  the  mist  and  semi-obscurity. 

Not  a  pleasant  region  this  ;  and  it  will  readily  be 
believed  that  some  strong  inducement — nothing  less 
than  diamond-mines,  in  fact — was  required  to  arouse 
the  aggressive  propensities,  as  well  as  excite  the 
annexing  passion,  of  John  Bull.     But  here,  en  passant, 


6  A    BARREN    COUNTRY. 

I  may  as  well  explain  that,  when  I  accuse  Great 
Britain  and  its  Government  of  the  political  crimes  to 
be  exposed  and  protested  against  in  this  work,  it  is 
indirectly  they  have  become  responsible  for  them,  not 
directly.  The  Colonial  Government  at  the  Cape  of 
Good  Hope  being  the  actual  perpetrators  of  the  wrong, 
but  for  which  the  Home  Government  has  become  fully 
responsible,  having  sometimes  authorized  its  represen- 
tatives at  the  Cape,  sometimes  approved  their  un- 
just and  illegal  acts,  and  never,  as  they  should  have 
clone,  repudiated  them. 

For  the  purposes  of  this  work  a  sufficient  descrip- 
tion of  the  position,  aspect,  and  nature  of  the  disputed 
diamondiferous  territory  has  already  been  given,  and 
it  only  remains  to  add  that  the  three  mid-winter 
months,  June,  July,  and  August,  are  really  very  magnifi- 
cent weather  ;  and  that,  here  and  there,  like  an  oasis  in 
the  desert,  along  the  banks  of  the  few  rivers,  a  scanty 
vegetation  of  low  willow  trees  can  be  met  with.  But, 
excepting  the  common  staple  of  the  whole  country — 
wool — to  which  diamonds  are  now  added  as  a  temporary 
production,  until  the  deposits  are  exhausted — this 
region  is  a  wilderness  in  every  sense  of  the  word.  No 
grain,  nothing  of  value,  will  thrive  therein,  so  constant 
are  the  droughts.  The  solitary  permanent  industry 
being  sheep-farming,  and  as  the  "  runs  "  must  neces- 
sarily be  very  extensive,  some  sixty  to  ninety  farms 
would  take  up  the  whole  of  the  10,000  square  miles 
contained  within  the  territory ;  indeed,  at  the  present 
time,  almost  the  whole  of  it  is  so  disposed  of  to  some 
sixty  or  seventy  boers. 

The  multitudes,  the  press  of  business,  the  energetic 
life  and  bustle  at  the  few  small  spots  known  as  the 


ITS   INHABITANTS.  7 

diamond  diggings,  are  all  of  a  very  temporary  and  evan- 
escent nature;  and  already  (October,  1872)  are  begin- 
ning very  sensibly  to  decrease. 

In  order  to  deal  with  the  territorial  question  and 
dispute  in  a  thoroughly  exhaustive  manner,  it  is  neces- 
sary to  make  this  work  a  complete  political  history  of 
the  diamondiferous  region,  or,  as  it  has  been  more 
euphoniously  named,  Adamantia.  It  is  necessary  to 
satisfy  those  who  might  feel  inclined  to  construct  some 
theory  of  tenure  or  territorial  right  from  the  original 
or  aboriginal  inhabitants;  so  we  will  commence  ab 
initio,  that  is  to  say,  from  so  far  as  the  beginning  is 
known,  and  that  is  not  more  than  a  century  to  a  century 
and  a  half  ago.  It  is  certainly  a  very  new  country  so 
far  as  population  is  concerned,  though,  from  its  own 
natural  qualities,  most  who  look  upon  it,  admitting 
that  it  was  commenced,  are  very  positive  that  it  has 
never  yet  been  completed. 

Like  most  parts  of  Africa,  neither  ruins  nor  remains 
of  any  sort  exist  to  guide  the  antiquarian  and  anthro- 
pological student — nothing  but  a  few  erratic  native 
legends — a  few  records  handed  down  from  family  to 
family  of  the  Dutch  or  emigrant  boers. 

Upon  one  point,  however,  all  evidence  seems  unani- 
mous, viz.,  that  until  the  boers,  moving  north  of  the 
Orange  river,  in  the  beginning  of  the  present  century, 
occupied  the  ground,  certain  portions  of  it  never  had 
been  held,  nor  possession  ever  retained  by  any  natives 
whatsoever. 

It  is  true  that  both  tradition  and  the  reports  of  these 
pioneer  white  men  establish  the  fact  that  there  were, 
even  far  back  in  the  eighteenth  century,  a  race  of 
aborigines  in  Adamantia,  but  these  were  Bushmen, 
and  were  never  found  except  along  the  bush  and  caves 


8  BUSHMAN   ABORIGINES. 

immediately  upon  the  banks  and  courses  of  the  rivers 
— the  country  away  from  the  streams  and  water  being 
simply  unoccupied  and  uninhabited. 

Whether,  at  any  former  period,  this  miserable  and 
degraded  people  held  possession  of  the  plains  must  ever 
remain  unknown ;  but  it  is  pretty  certain  that,  more 
than  a  hundred  years  ago,  their  numbers  were  greatly 
reduced  by  the  first  incursions  and  appearance  in  those 
parts  of  the  tribes  of  Hottentots  and  Koranas.  These, 
driven  northward  by  the  wars  between  themselves  in 
what  is  now  known  as  Namaqualand  and  the  Cape 
Colony,  as  well  as  by  the  arrival  of  Portuguese  and  Dutch, 
who,  as  is  usual  in  such  cases,  soon  began  to  make  the 
contact  with  the  civilized  man  pretty  heavily  felt  by 
him  uncivilized,  gradually  retreated  further  and 
fuither,  fled,  or  were  driven  back  from  the  sea  coast 
to  the  interior,  following,  naturally  enough,  the  river 
valleys  and  channels.  Being,  in  this  way,  brought  to 
the  first-known  inhabitants  of  Adamantia,  Nature's  great 
process  at  once  commenced.  The  Koranas  had  just 
escaped  from  stronger  men  who  would  destroy  them  ; 
they  now,  with  a  charming  phlegm,  at  once  began  to 
destroy  the  first  they  encountered,  because  weaker  than 
themselves.  It  does  not  appear  that,  even  in  their 
most  halcyon  days,  the  poor  Bushmen  ever  possessed 
anything  like  numerous  flocks  and  herds — they  never 
were,  in  any  sense  of  the  word  (so  far  as  present  in- 
formation tells),  a  pastoral  people ;  never  patronized 
any  branch  of  industry ;  but  have  ever  been  known 
as  a  malicious,  malignant,  impish  little  race  of  stunted 
beings — neither  man  nor  monkey,  but  a  fair  j)roportion 
of  each — particularly  addicted  to  holes,  roots,  hiding 
like  wild  animals,  and  poisoned  arrows. 


HOTTENTOTS   AND    KORANAS.  9 

Whether  they  first  robbed  and  murdered  the  Koranas, 
or  the  latter  began  with  them,  history  showeth  not, 
but,  as  they  probably  had  not  anything  worth  stealing, 
the  chances  are  that  either  they  commenced  a  little 
cattle-lifting  at  the  expense  of  the  strange  wanderers, 
or  these  set  to  work  butchering  them  purely  for  pas- 
time and  from  habit. 

Over  a  great  expanse  of  country  this  Bushman  ex- 
terminating process  went  steadily  forward  a  century 
ago.  In  Namaqualand,  to  the  west  of  the  present 
Adamantia,  and  more  or  less  all  along  the  valley  of  the 
Orange  river,  even  up  to  the  Drakensberg  mountains. 
In  all  directions  the  Koranas  poured  in,  to  be  followed 
by  other  tribes  known  as  Hottentots,  and  these  to  be 
in  turn  succeeded  by  bands  of  half-caste  or  mongrel 
Bastards.  As  the  Kafir  tribes  were  thick  and  numerous 
in  the  rear,  the  wretched  Bushmen  were  caught  between 
two  fires.  Those  who  escaped  the  muskets  of  the 
yellow-skinned  emigrants  only  ran  upon  the  assegais 
of  the  blacks.  The  dwarfish  race  almost  vanished  from 
the  face  of  the  earth. 
r  — It  is  as  well  to  explain  that  the  Hottentots,  KxyraimSj  \ 
[and  Bushmen  seem  really  vej^joejpdyi^ailie^ — The^ 
two  former  have  the  same  Malay,  or  Mongolian,  appear- 
ance, but  with  very  short  and  scanty  wool  instead  of 
hair ;  they  are  the  same  dirty  yellow  complexion,  of 
the  same  light,  wiry  build,  and  speak,  or  chatter,  just 
like  monkeys,  the  very  same  extraordinary  language  of 
cliks ;  the  only  difference  in  the  case  of  the  Bushman 
being  that  he  is  a  more  puny,  hideous,  and  altogether 
more  abominable  variety  of  the  same  species  of  man. 
The  Bastards,  a  very  mixed  race  between  all  three, 
with  a  mingling  of  both  white  and  Kafir  blood,  are 


10  STATEMENT   OF   TPIE   KORANA   CHIEF. 

now  known  as  Griquas — i.e.,  a  mixed  people.  Native 
tradition  gives  a  very  concise  account  as  to  the  origin 
of  the  names  Hottentot  and  Korana. 

There  were  two  brothers,  Kora  and  Hottentot; 
the  latter  remained  in  the  Cape  Colony,  and  the 
descendants  of  the  former  emigrated  and  crossed  the 
Orange  River,  under  the  Taaibosch, — the  family  name 
of  the  present  hereditary  and  paramount  chief  of  the 
Korana  tribes. 

For  my  part,  I  consider  that  the  best  claim  to 
sovereignty,  title  by  hereditary  succession,  or  terri- 
torial right  over  the  disputed  lands  north  of  the  Vaal, 
is  put  forward  by  the  Koranas,  and,  in  order  to  prove 
the  same,  I  have  obtained  the  following  deposition 
and  documents  specially  for  this  work. 

Statement  of  the  Paramount  Chief  Massah  Eijt  Taaibosch, 
of  the  Korana  Tribe  and  People  residing  in  the  Mamtjsa 
Territory. 

We  hold  the  following  correct,  and  are  prepared  to  prove  the  same  ly 
indisputable  evidence. 

"  My  father  and  the  Chief  Jan  Taaibosch  were  brothers'  children. 
Jan  was  the  recognized  paramount  chief  of  the  entire  Korana 
people.  Our  forefathers,  as  chiefs  of  our  nation,  resided  formerly  at 
and  occupied  the  ground  now  known  as  Capetown,  and  became 
dispossessed  of  the  same  by  the  first  white  inhabitants,  viz.,  the 
Portuguese ;  hence,  when  we  give  our  statement,  it  is  that  of  here- 
ditary chiefs,  and  in  the  memory  of  white  nations. 

"My  grandfather  emigrated  from  the  west  of  the  Cape  Colony. 
Our  people  occupied  the  present  Griquatown — then  known  as  Klaar- 
water — as  also  the  junction  of  the  Yaal  and  Orange  rivers.*  The 
Barolong  (Kafir)  Chief  Tau,  then  in  occupation  of  the  place  called 
Tauns  f  on  the  Harts  River,  visited  the  chief,  my  grandfather,  at 

*  See  diagram  A  (end  of  chapter).  f  Ditto. 


STATEMENT   OF   THE   KORANA  CHIEF..  11 

Klaar-water.  The  Barolongs  at  this  time  occupied  Tauns  and 
surrounding  country.  The  Chief  Tau  then  departed,  having,  as  we 
thought,  visited  our  chief  and  people  in  a  friendly  way.  After  a 
lapse  of  time,  the  Chief  Tau  again  visited  us,  and  was  attended  by 
a  large  number  of  his  people.  The  chief,  my  grandfather,  believing 
he  had  come  in  friendship,  made  haste  to  meet  him,  and  presented 
sundry  articles  of  food  to  him  and  his  people,  according  to  our 
native  customs. 

"  The  Chief  Tau  and  his  people,  noticing  a  convenient  oppor 
tunity,   and  having  concealed  under  their  skin  cloaks  (karosses) 
assegais  broken  short,  suddenly  displayed  their  treachery,  and  mur- 
dered the   chief,   my   grandfather,  with  a  large  number  of  our 
people. 

11  After  the  loss  of  our  chief,  we  recognized  the  father  of  Jan 
Taaibosch,  my  grand-uncle,  as  chief,  and  under  him  we  crossed  the 
Harts  River  in  pursuit  of  Tau  and  his  people,  who  had  fled  back 
to  their  country.  We  fought  the  treacherous  chief  and  his  Baro- 
longs, defeated,  and  drove  them  away.  We  followed  the  chief  to 
his  great  place,  Tauns,  and  fought  four  battles  with  him  and  the 
Batlaping  tribes  of  Kafirs  (who  were  at  this  time  the  slaves  of  the 
Barolongs) — the  said  Batlaping  people  being  a  mixture  of  Barolong, 
Bushmen,  &c;  hence  claim  no  distinct  nationality. 

"We  forced  the  Barolongs  to  leave  the  country,  and  take  refuge 
at  Setlagole.*  The  Barolong  country  then  reached  to  [Setabing 
Makwasi  and  the  Molopo  Eiver.  The  Chief  Tau  died  of  his 
wounds.  The  Barolongs  then  appointed  one  Mokalaka ;  but  this 
chief  fled,  and  then  one  Massua  was  made  chief,  and  with  him  we 
made  peace,  and  defined  our  boundaries,  viz. : — 

"  From  the  Saltpan  known  as  Kweichona,  and  the  Saltpan  known 
as  Karre,  extending  to  Magakabane,  from  thence  to  Malachue, 
thence  to  Jaresafontein,  thence  to  Koning,  thence  to  Langeberg 
(Mts.),  thence  with  a  stright  line  to  the  Orange  Eiver,  including 
Blink-Klip  and  Klaar-water  (Griquatown),  thence  with  the  Orange 
Eiver  past  Bloemhof  to  the  Blesbok  Spruit,  and  thence  to  the 
Saltpan* 

*  Nearly  100  miles  to  the  north. 

f  A  reference  to  diagram  A  (at  the  end  of  the  chapter)  will  show  that 
not  only  do  the  boundaries  thus  defined  include  all  the  ground  claimed 
and  disputed  by  the  Griquas  under  Waterboer,  but  also  nearly  the  whole 
of  the  territory  occupied  by  them  north  of  the  Yaal  River.. 


12  STATEMENT   OF   THE   KORANA   CHIEF. 

"  We  were  never  deprived  of  these  lands  by  war,  neither  have  our  chiefs 
ceded  any  portions  of  our  lands  to  other  people. 

"This  transpired  during  the  rule  of  Jan  Taaibosch.  About  this 
time  my  father,  Kijt  Taaibosch,  was  born  at  Griquatown,  then 
called  Klaar-water. 

"The  first  Griquas  arrived  about  1811,  long  subsequent  to  our 
date  of  conquest.  And  whilst  our  people  occupied  (the  country) 
the  Griquas  came  under  Cornejius  Kok,  and  settled  at  Klaar-water 
(Griquatown).  The  first  missionary  then  came  amongst  the  Korana 
people.  I,  the  present  Chief  Massau  Kijt  Taaibosch,  was  born  at 
the  old  Platberg  (and  I  am  now  upwards  of  one  hundred  years  of 
age).  About  this  time  Goliad  Zysterbeck,  also  a  cousin  of  Jan 
Taaibosch,  had  a  tribal  quarrel  with  him,  and  defeated  him ;  after 
which  Jan  Taaibosch  left  the  country,  leaving  my  father,  Eijt 
Taaibosch  as  chief.  After  my  father's  death  I  became  chief,  and 
have  occupied  up  to  the  present  time. 

"  We  allowed  the  Barolong  and  Batlaping  tribes  (of  Kafirs)  to  occupy 
portions  of  our  land  upon  sufferance.  The  old  Chief  Barend  Barendse 
(Griqua)  obtained  our  permission  to  reside  at  Boutchap*  The  first 
Bloem  was  a  Dutchman,  and  married  a  Korana  wife.  His  children 
were  allowed  to  be  petty  chiefs  of  the  Koranas  known  as  the 
Springbok  tribe.  After  fighting  and  defeating  the  Barolong  Chief 
Tau,  our  people  occupied  principally  the  conquered  territory.  My 
father,  Kijt  Taaibosch,  occupied  Patuni*  (or  Nukuni),  the  residence 
now  of  the  Paramount  Chief  Gasibone,  of  the  Batlapings.  My 
uncle  Khamakose  died  at  Patuni ;  the  petty  chief  Bloem  is  buried 
at  Tauns.  The  graves  of  our  people  are  abundant  at  Tauns,  Griqua- 
town, Campbell,  andother  principal  places,  proving  the  length  of  our 
occupation  and  possession  of  the  land.  We  have  lived  in  peace  with 
other  native  tribes,  as  also  the  emigrant  boers.  We  now  occupy  our 
territory  of  Mamusa,*  and  rely  upon  the  good  faith  of  civilized 
Governments  that  we  shall  not  be  deprived  of  our  just  territorial 
rights,  because  adventurers  like  the  mixed  people  of  Waterboer 
may  desire  to  appropriate  our  lands  and  exclude  us,  who  always 
were  and  are  a  distinct  people." 

"Protest  of  the  Chief  Massau  Kijt  Taaibosch  and   Kaad  (or 
Councillors). 
"We,  the  undersigned    Chief    Massau   and  Councillors  of  the 


#    G 


See  diagram  A  (end  of  chapter). 


PROTEST  OF  KORANA  CHIEFS.  13 

Korana  people,  do  hereby  solemnly  protest  against  the  aggressive 
claim  put  forward  by  the  Chief  Nicolas  Waterboer  upon  our  lands 
and  territories  lying  between  the  Yaal  and  Harts  rivers. 

"  Because  these  lands  and  a  large  extent  of  territory  now  occupied 
by  the  Chief  Waterboer  has  belonged  to  our  tribe  for  upwards 
of  one  hundred  years,  and  we  and  our  tribe  have  constantly,  under 
successive  chieftains,  retained  undisputed  possession  ;  and  we  inherit 
our  claims  by  right  of  conquest  from  the  Barolong  Chief  Tau. 

"  And  we  never  have  ceded  these  our  claims,  nor  any  portion 
thereof,  to  any  native  chief ;  neither  have  we  been  deprived  of  any 
portion  by  war  with  any  other  people. 

"We  further  declare  that  the  Barolong  or  Batlaping  chiefs 
residing  within  our  said  territories,  between  the  Vaal  and  Harts 
Rivers  have  no  claim  to  the  land,  and  have  always  occupied  the  same 
by  sufferance. 

"  We  further  protest  against  the  claims  of  the  Barolong  Chief 
Montsea,  the  same  being  illegal  and  groundless,  upon  the  principle 
that  any  of  these  days  the  Dutch  Government  might  as  well  make 
a  transfer  of  the  Cape  Colony  to  any  foreign  power,  because  they 
once  held  possession,  notwithstanding  the  English  nation  claim  it 
by  right  of  conquest.  And  we  herewith  protest  against  any  such 
estrangement  of  our  lands,  unless  with  our  sanction,  and  warn  the 
several  Governments  and  people  against  any  appropriation  of  our 
lands  upon  such  false  and  unfair  conditions.  In  witness  of  this,  our 
solemn  protest,  we  sign  our  names : — 

"Kapitein,  Massatj  Rut  Taaibosch,  his  +  mark. 
"  Andries  Rut  Taaibosch,  his  +  mark. 
"  Ltjkas  Modder,  his  +  mark. 
1 '  (Signed)  '  <  Andries. 


11  Julius. 
"David  Massau. 


"Witnesses  (    W.  C.  Iteouas. 


Richard  Miles. 
"Mamma,  November  20,  1870. 

11  We  hereby  declare  that  the  above  is  true  and  correct : 

"G.  Donovan, 

"  Native  Representative. 

"  J.  P.  TlGHE, 

"Late  EM.  llth  Regt. 
"fie  Beers,  New  Rush,  June  18,  1872." 


14  DECLARATION   OF   KAFIR   CHIEFS. 

The  -above  documents  are  very  important,  as  so 
clearly  establishing,  upon  so  definite  a  ground,  the 
best  and  most  ancient  claim  asserted  to  sovereign  rights 
over  the  disputed  territory  north  of  the  Vaal.  It  is 
very  conclusively  corroborated  in  the  following  de- 
claration of  the  principal  Batlaping  and  Barolong 
Chiefs  in  that  neighbourhood  ;  the  descendants,  indeed, 
of  the  very  people  from  whom  the  Koranas  obtained 
the  land  by  right  of  conquest  a  century  ago. 

Declaration  of  several  principal  Barolong  and  Batlaping  Kafir 
Chiefs  in  reference  to  Territorial  Claims  on  each  side  of 
the  Harts  Eiver. 

"  We,  the  hereunto  subscribed  Chiefs,  do  solemnly  declare  that 
every  Bechuana  chief  and  tribe,  as  also  especially  the  people  and 
tribes  represented  by  the  undersigned,  came  into  this  country  and 
found  the  several  territories  since  in  our  occupation,  or  claimed  by  us, 
in  possession  of  Jan,  Kapitein  (TaaiboschJ,  the  Paramount  Chief  of  the 
Korana  people.  And  since  that  chief  we  acknowledge  (1)  the  right 
of  occupation  to  Gert  Taaibosch,  the  rightful  hereditary  and  terri- 
torial chief,  and  (2)  at  the  present  time  to  the  Chief  Massau  Rift 
Taaibosch,  territorial  chief  of  the  country  alluded  to  ;  and  these  things 
we  solemnly  declare,  and  they  are  in  accordance  with  our  tribal  laws 
and  ancient  observances. 

"We  further  say  that  the  Chief  Waterboer  is  no  chief  in  keeping 
with  our  laws,  and  cannot  claim  our  allegiance  by  right,  and  neither 
did  we,  nor  any  of  us,  ever  at  any  time  acknowledge  him  as  such ; 
and  we  say  that  none  of  us  ever  did  by  any  act  of  ours  authorize  or 
in  any  way  aid  or  sanction  any  claim  to  our  several  lands  on  either 
side  of  the  Harts  Eiver ;  and  we  hear  with  sorrow  that  the  Chief 
Waterboer  has  entered  into  an  arrangement  with  the  Orange  Free 
State,*  by  which  arrangement  that  power  claims  the  territory 
between  the  Vaal  and  Harts  rivers.  We  therefore  ignore  and 
protest  against  this  estrangement  involving  our  several  rights,  and 
the  right  of  Massau  Eijt  Taaibosch  as  territorial  Chief.     And  we 

*  This  is  an  error;  the  arrangement  having  been  entered  into 
between  Waterboer  and  the  British  Colonial  Government. 


DECLARATION   OF   KAFIR   CHIEFS.  15 

say  that  any  chief  or  people  on  either  side  of  the  Harts  River,  or 
between  the  Yaal  and  Harts  rivers,  who  shall  aid  or  assist  the 
Chief  Waterboer  in  his  sale  or  transfer  of  the  land  alluded  to,  such 
chief  or  people  shall  forfeit  any  claim  to  the  land  now  in  his  (or 
their)  occupation. 

"In  conclusion,  we  solemnly  protest,  in  the  face  of  Heaven  and 
Earth,  against  any  such  arrangements,  as  being  contrary  to  our  usages, 
our  rights  to  the  several  lands  occupied  by  us,  and  the  lawful  right  of 
the  territorial  Chief,  Massau  Eijt  Taaibosch,  from  whom  we  have, 
and  ever  had,  our  (occupation)  right  to  the  territories  in  question. 
"  In  witness  whereof  our  hands, 

"Gasibone,  his  +  mark. 

"  Paramount  Chief. 
"  Barend  Bloem,  his  -+-  mark. 

"  Chief. 
"Mankuran  Molehabani,  his  4- mark. 

"  Chief. 
"Matlabani,  his  +  mark. 

"Chief. 
"Bogasieu,  his  +  mark. 
"  Chief. 
"Done  at  Tauns,  August  10,  1870. 
"  For  copy  confirm. 

"(Signed)  "J.RAFE,Junr. 

"  Secretary,  Diggers'  Executive  Council." 


We  declare  the  above  to  be  a  true  copy, 

"J.  Gerald,  Donovan, 
"  Late  Government  Inspector  of  Pneil  Diamond  Fields. 
"Gr.  Donovan, 
"Native  Representative. 

"J.  P.  TlGHE, 

"  Late  Lieutenant  H.M.  llth  Regiment" 


"t 


EPISODE   OF   AFRICANER. 


CHAPTER  II. 

Early    History    continued:      Settlement     of     the 
Griquas,  and  Dutch,  or  Emigrant  Farmers. 

Episode  of  Africaner. — Settlement  of  Griqua  Squatters. — Eev. 
J.  Ludorf's  Report. — Attorney- General  Porter's  Report. — 
Griqua  Barbarities. — Mr.  Porter's  Opinion  on  relative 
Rights  of  Early  Settlers. — Reports  of  Major  Warden,  Assist.- 
Com.-Gen.  Green,  and  Sir  Harry  Smith. — Boer  and  Griqua 
Rights  to  Territory  coeval  and  equal. — Deposition  of 
Hendrik  Hendrikse. — Definition  of  Boundaries  of  the 
Original    Griqualand. — A    Missionary     causes    Dissension 

AMONGST  TnE  GRIQUAS. — APPEARANCE  OF  ANDRIES  WATERBOER. 

A  Line  made  between  Campbell  and  Griqua  Town. 

Having  described  the  settlement  and  establishment 
of  the  Korana  tribes  in  and  about  Adamantia,  our 
next  object  is  to  deal  in  a  similar  manner  with  the 
Bastards,  or  Griquas,  and  the  emigrant  farmers  of 
Dutch  descent,  who  next  appeared  upon  the  scene. 

During  the  month  of  August,  1871,  a  series  of 
articles  from  the  pen  of  the  Rev.  J.  Ludorf,  a  well- 
known  missionary  and  authority  upon  native  history, 
appeared  in  the  "  Diamond  News  " — a  paper  published 
at  Pniel,  on  the  Vaal  River,  until  the  "  dry  diggings" 
broke  out. 

For  the  following  account  of  Africaner,  one  of  the 
Hottentot  chiefs,  who  indirectly  brought  about  the 
settlement  of  the  Griquas  in  Adamantia,  I  am  mainly 
indebted  to  those  articles. 

The  large  tribe  of  the  notorious  Jagers  or  Africaners, 


To  face  jk  16,  chap.  2. 


civilization  a  la  COLONIST.  17 

had,  from  olden  times,  roamed  on  their  native  hills  and 
dales  within  one  hundred  miles  from  Capetown, 
pastured  their  own  flocks,  killed  their  own  game, 
drank  their  own  streams,  and  mingled  the  wild  music 
of  their  heathen  songs  with  the  wilder  winds  which 
burst  over  the  rugged  Witsemberg  and  Winterhoek 
mountains — once  the  strongholds  of  their  clan.  As 
the  early  Dutch  settlers  increased,  and  found  it  neces- 
sary to  make  room  for  themselves  by  adopting  as  their 
own  the  country  which  lay  beyond  them,  the  Hotten- 
tots, perfectly  incapable  of  maintaining  their  ground 
against  these  foreign  intruders,  were  compelled  to  give 
place  by  removing  to  a  distance  or  yielding  themselves 
in  passive  obedience  to  the  farmers. 

When  the  Aborigines  chose  to  fight  for  the  land 
they  had  never  utilized,  they  only  fell,  shot  like  dogs 
in  the  open  country,  or  smoked  like  rats  in  their  holes 
if  they  retreated  to  the  fastnesses  and  recesses  of  the 
mountains.  A  Golgotha  exists  at  many  a  lonely  dell, 
where,  unchronicled  and  unmourned,  the  long-forgotten 
natives  fought,  and  some  savage  band  perished  to  a 
man.  * 

From  that  time  Jager  or  Africaner  receded,  until  at 

last  he  united  with  farmer  P ,  whom  he  faithfully 

served.  Many  provocations  and  oppressions,  however, 
finally  roused  the  dormant  energies  of  the  oft* dejected 
chieftain.  His  people  had  dwindled  to  a  mere  handful 
their  wives  and  daughters  were  abused,  their  children 
murdered  (it  is  said),  while  he  himself  had  to  subsist 
upon  a  scanty  pittance. 

Events  occurring  which  caused  him  to  suspect 
further  evil,  Africaner — who  had  been  trained  to  the 
use  of  firearms — now  refused  to  comply  with  the  com- 

c 


18  MURDER    OF    FARMER    P . 

mancls  of  the  master,  who  was  a  kind  of  justice  of  the 
]}eace  in  the  old  Dutch  colony  of  the  Cape.  With  his 
people  he  intimated  their  wish  to  have  some  reward 
for  their  often  galling  services,  and  be  allowed  to 
retire  to  some  sequestered  district  beyond,  to  live  in 
peace.  This  was  sternly  refused,  and  greater  severities 
threatened. 

Still  it  had  not  entered  their  minds  to  do  violence 
to  the  farmer.  Exasperated  that  his  repeated  orders 
to  the  natives  (or  rather,  slaves)  were  no  longer 
obeyed,  he  summoned  them  before  his  door.  This 
was  an  awful  moment,  though  they  were  accustomed 
to  scenes  of  barbarity.  Jagcr,  with  his  brother,  moved 
slowly  up  a  few  steps  leading  to  the  door.  The  farmer 
rushed  furiously  on  the  chieftain,  and  with  one  blow 
precipitated  him  to  the  bottom  of  the  steps  ;  when 
Titus,  the  chief's  brother,  drew  his  gun  from  behind 

him  and  fired  on  P ,  who  fell  dead.     They  then 

entered  the  house.  The  farmer's  wife,  having  witnessed 
the  fall  of  her  husband,  shrieked  and  implored  mercy. 
They  had  nothing  against  her.  They  took  the  guns 
and  ammunition,  and  charged  her  not  to  leave  the  house 
during  the  night,  or  else  they  could  not  ensure  her 
safety.  Overcome  with  terror,  two  children  escaped 
by  a  back  door,  and  were  killed  by  Bushmen.  Mrs. 
P reached  the  nearest  farm  in  safety. 

This  tragic  event  led  to,  perhaps,  the  first  irruption 
of  Hottentots  into  Adamantia,  and,  ultimately,  to  the 
settlement  of  the  Griqua  people  north  of  the  Vaal, 
upon  the  very  same  localities  whence  they  now  set  up 
the  Waterboer  claim  to  the  diamond  fields  ! 

After  the  farmer's  death,  Africaner  at  once  rallied 
the  remnant  of  his  tribe,  directed  their  steps  to  the 


MIGRATION    OF   GRIQUAS.  19 

Orange  River,  and  was  soon  beyond  the  reach  of  his 
pursuers.  Attempts  made  by  the  Dutch  Colonial  Go- 
vernment with  the   farmers,    to   punish   this    daring 

outrage  on  the  P family  failed,  though  rewards 

were  offered  and  commandos  *  went  out  for  the  pur- 
pose. 

The  farmers  then  bribed  some  of  the  Bastards. 
This  gave  rise  to  a  long  series  of  severe  and_bloqdy 
conflicts  bet^v^en__Africaner  and  the  Griqua  chief 
Berend  Berends,  with  his  associates — Berends  impelled 
by  reward  and  the  hope  of  loot,  Africaner  by  motives 
of  self-defence,  and  a  desire  to  wreak  vengeance  on 
his  enemies,  the  farmers  as  well  as  their  allies. 

Africaner  seems  to  have  resided  principally  about 
the  Vaal  and  Modder  Rivers,  and,  though  neither  of  the 
chiefs  conquered,  they  harassed  each  other  dreadfully. 
Wearied  by  these  conflicts,  the  Griqua  chiefs,  Cornelius 
Kok,  of  Kamesberg,with  Berend  Berends  and  his  party, 
migrated  clear  away  into  the  country  then  occupied 
by  the  Batlaping  Kafirs  north  of  the  Vaal  River. 

Molehabangue,  paramount  chief  of  this  nation, 
received  them  in  the  most  friendly  manner. 

And  it  is  now  important  to  notice  the  fact  that,  in 
the  words  of  the  missionary,  he  "  lent  them  three  or 
four  fountains  to  sow  corn,  and  gave  them  permission 
to  hunt  for  game.  Cornelius  Kok,  sen.,  settled  at 
Mothaga,  Berend  Berends  at  Tlaka-lo-tlou  (Daniel's 
Kuil),*]"  Nels  Kok,  jun.,  at  what  subsequently  was 
named  Campbell,  j*  No  other  agreement  was  ever  entered 
into  tuith  respect  to  land  or  boundary  between  the  Bechuana" 


*  Commando  is  the  Colonialism  for  an  armed  burgher  force  called 
into  the  field  by  the  Government. 

f  For  position  of  these  places,  see  diagram  A,  end  of  Chapter  I. 


20  GRIQUA    SETTLEMENT. 

(Kafirs)  "  and  the  Bastard  Hottentots  "  (Griquas).  "  The 
head  quarters  of  the  Batlaping "  (the  name  of  the 
particular  Kafir  tribe,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  then 
occupied  the  land  by  consent  of  its  real  owners,  the 
Koranas)  "were  atNkoeng,  near  Lithako,  where  their 
principal  chief  lies  buried.  By  special  permission 
Nicholas  Bercnds"  (the  brother  of  the  chief  B.  Berends) 
"  toas  allowed  to  settle  at  Boechap  ;  *  but  when,  in  1823, 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Hodgson  began  to  build  a  dwelling- 
house,  he  received  a  letter  from  Kuruman,  '  to  inform 
him  that  Boechap  was  not  Griqua  but  Batlaping  ground ; 
and  if  Ms  erecting  buildings  on  that  spot  could  ever  be  in~ 
tcrpreted  as  a  claim  on  behalf  of  the  Griquas,  he  had  better 
desist  at  once!  ?  j* 

"Mr.  Hodgson  replied  ' that  it  was  indifferent  to 
him  who  claimed  ownership  ;  all  he  wished  was  to  be 
allowed  to  preach  the  Gospel.  He  would  certainly  be 
no  party  in  alienating  lands  from  the  Bechoana.'  With 
this  understanding  he  quietly  built.  Cornelius  I\ok 
died  under  the  pastoral  care  of  Mr.  Hodgson. 

"  The  Rev.  John  Campbell,  on  his  visiting  the 
Bastard  Hottentots,  in  1813,  took  intense  interest  in 
their  case.  He  induced  them  to  change  their  name 
into  Griqua  — a  mixed  people;  gave  the  name  of  Gri- 
qualand  to  the  place  presided  over  by  Dam  Kok  "  (son 
of  Cornelius) ;  "  made  a  number  of  civil  laws,  which  they 
received;  and  had  money  struck  for  their  use.  A  good 
supply  of  Missionaries,  &c,  were  sent  to  them,  and 
they  have  certainly  "had  great  advantages  for  moral 

*  For  position  of  this  place,  see  diagram  A,  end  of  Chapter  I. 

f  Here,  again,  from  an  entirely  different  and  independent  source,  we 
have  evidence  corroborating  that  of  the  present  Batlaping  chiefs,  who 
cliam  as  the  sub-tenants  or  feudatories  of  the  Koranas. 


GRIQUAS    ONLY    SQUATTERS.  21 

and  civil  improvement,  which  no  other  tribe  north  of 
the  Vaal  ever  had." 

I  cannot  find  any  evidence  as  to  the  exact  date  when 
the  Griquas  settled  down  in  their  new  quarters,  but 
quite  sufficient  to  prove  that  it  was  certainly  within  a 
year  or  two  of  1811. 

From  the  above  account  we  obtain  further  important 
evidence  that  the  Griquas  were  merely  squatters  upon 
certain  grounds  by  the  generosity  and  sufferance  of 
the  real  owners  and  their  feudatories ;  that,  more- 
over, until  these  latter  should  sell  to  them,  formally  present* 
or  lose  hy  war  their  territorial  rights,  neither  could  any 
such  accrue  to  them.  It  does  not  appear  that  either  one 
of  these  conditions  ever  came  to  pass.  The  principal 
Korana  tribe  (the  Sorcerers)  under  their  hereditary 
paramount  chiefs  the  Taaiboschs,  have  never  abandoned 
nor  forfeited  their  sovereign  rights  as  the  successors  to 
the  aboriginal  owners  of  the  soil  by  right  of  conquest. 
For,  surely,  it  can  never  be  maintained  that  simple 
absence  from  molestation  by  the  real  owners  of  a 
country  creates  territorial  rights  for  squatters  so  dis- 
tinctly upon  sufferance  ? 

By  and  by  we  shall  have  to  consider  whether  or  no 
the  long  abandonment  of  part  of  their  territory  to  the 
squatters  has  caused  the  right  of  the  Koranas  to  lapse, 
now  that  they  seem  to  give  a  tacit  consent  to  the  title 
of  the  Griquas. 

To  the  chief  Berends  we  may  almost  say  adieu 
already,  but  with  the  family  of  the  Koks,  who,  from 
the  first,  seem  to  have  been  the  hereditary  chiefs  of  the 
greater  part  of  the  Griquas,  we  have  much  to  do. 

At  the  first  settlement  of  these  people  in  their  new 
country  they  established  two  principal  kraals  or  villages 


22  THE   VALLEY   OF   DIAMONDS. 

Upon  the  Rev.  J.  Campbell's  visit  in  1813,  that  to 
the  west,  under  one  Adam  Kok,  was  named  Griqua- 
town,  and  that  to  the  east,  under  Cornelius  Kok  (his 
brother),  became  known  henceforth  as  Campbell. 
With  the  former  place  we  shall  only  be  indirectly  in- 
terested, but  with  the  latter  this  work  is  specially  con- 
cerned, its  adjacent  grounds  —  known  as  the  Campbell 
lands — comprising1,  indeed,  the  whole  of  the  disputed 
territory  in  Adamantia,  north  of  the  Vaal,  claimed  by 
the  Orange  Free  State. 

Some  time  elapsed  ere  any  definite  attention  was. 
paid  to  the  territory  on  the  south  bank  of  the  Vaal — in 
fact,  nor  trace  nor  record  of  any  permanent  kraal  or 
native  establishment  exists.  This  applies  to  the  whole 
of  the  disputed  lands  on  that  side  of  the  river.  And 
yet  this  spot,  which  seems  to  have  been  so  carefully 
avoided  by  the  natives,  has  just  been  discovered  to  con- 
tain the  richest  diamond  mines  in  the  world  !  For  ages 
the  wandering  savage  has  passed  on  over  incalculable 
wealth,  actually  trodden  by  his  feet ;  the  glittering 
gems  lying  at  all  depths,  commencing  from  the  very 
surface. 

From  the  reports  of  the  Rev.  J.  Luclorf,  already  re- 
ferred to,  we  obtain  another  important  date. 

"In  1814;  the  Eev.  Mr.  Anderson  received  an  order  from  the 
Colonial  Government  to  send  down  to  the  Cape  twenty  Griquas  for 
the  Cape  regiment.  .  .  .  "Was  it  possible  that  a  people  just  emerg- 
ing from  barbarism,  and  scarcely  able  to  defend  themselves,  would 
send  twenty  of  their  best  men  to  serve  at  the  Cape  ?  The  result  of 
non-compliance  with  this  order  was  a  threat  from  Government,  and 
the  initiation  of  a  restrictive  system,  by  which  the  Missionaries  were 
prevented  frorn  crossing  the  northern  boundary"  (of  the  Cape  Colony). 
"  From  this  demand  dates  the  Griqua  rebellion.  .  .  .  The  rebels — 
or  Bergenaars,  as  they  style  themselves — were  exercising  dreadful 


ORIGIN    OF   GRIQUAS.  23 

barbarities,  and  reduced  many  Bechoana  tribes  to  extreme  poverty  ; 
there  is  a  blood  account  yet  to  settle  with,  the  Griquas." 

It  was  this  and  other  divisions  amongst  the  Griquas 
which  led  to  a  part  of  them  settling  south  of  the  Vaal, 
at  Philippolis,*  a  short  distance  north  of  the  Orange 
Kiver. 

In  order  to  avoid  confusion  between  the  disputed 
territory  north,  and  that  south  of  the  Vaal  River, 
I  shall  in  future  describe  the  former  by  its  common 
name,  the  Campbell-lands,  and  speak  of  the  latter  as 
South  Adamantia.    (See  diagram  A,  at  end  of  chapter  I.) 

Before  passing  on  from  the  early  history  of  the  Gri- 
quas, I  cannot  do  better  than  describe  their  origin  in 
the  words  of  Mr.  W.  Porter,  the  late  Attorney- General 
of  the  Cape  Colony. "j* 

11  There  were  also  there  the  Bastards,  sprung  originally  from  the 
intercourse  of  Dutch  settlers  with  coloured  women,  a  mixed  race  who 
emigrated  from  this  colony  early  in  the  present  century.  .  .  .  Forty 
years  ago,  or  thereabouts,  a  man  of  negro  blood  who  had  been  a 
slave,  but  who  had  saved,  by  industry  and  thrift,  money  enough  to 
buy  his  freedom,  collected  about  him  a  number  of  Bastards  and 
other  people  of  colour,  who  looked  up  to  him  as  their  head.  This 
was  Adam  Kok,  the  great-grandfather  of  the  present  Adam  Kok.  J 
Finding  that  his  people  had  increased  and  were  increasing,  old  Adam 
Kok  quitted  the  colony,  and  journeyed  into  the  Bushman  country, 
north  of  the  Great  Eiver  (Orange),  where,  after  some  wanderings — 
and,  if  report  lie  not,  no  small  destruction  of  the  aborigines — he  set- 
tled in  the  territory"  (of  the  Orange  Eiver).  "Then  he  was  joined  by 
Hottentots  and  free  blacks  from  the  colony,  and  by  refugees  from 
various  native  tribes,  forming  a  community  of  a  singularly  mixed 
description." 

The  cruelties  referred  to  by  Attorney- General  Por- 

#  So  named  after  the  Rev.   Dr.  Philips,  of  the  London  Missionary 
Society, 
f  See  p.  7,  Blue  Book,  "  Orange  River  Correspondence,  1851 — 5." 
J  Still  (1872)  living  as  Chief  of  the  Griquas  of  No  Man's  Land. 


24  GRIQUA   CRUELTIES. 

ter  and  tlie  Ecv.  J.  Ludorf,  as  having  been  penetrated 
upon  the  unfortunate  aborigines  by  the  Griquas,  were 
not  imaginary,  as  will  be  seen  from  the  following 
statements  and  depositions  taken  from  the  "  Friend  of 
the  Free  State/'  September  9th,  1864,  the  names  by 
which  they  are  attested  being  too  well-known  in  South 
Africa  to  require  any  comment  of  mine. 


A  FEW  AUTHENTIC  EECOEDS  ON  THE  EARLY 
HISTORY  OF  GRIQUALAND. 

"  Winlurg,  29th  August,  1864. 
"To  the  Editor — Sir, — I  beg  the   insertion   in   English,   and 
Dntch  of  the  accompanying  extracts. 

11  The  Free  State  is  really  greatly  indebted  to  the  Honorable  R. 
Godlonton  for  the  services  he  has  rendered  to  it. 

"  In  the  course  of  a  few  days,  I  hope  to  forward  to  you  further 
important  evidence  relative  to  our  right  to  this  country,  especially  as 
to  the  extent  of  country  purchased  by  the  boers. 

' '  Yours  truly, 

"  J.  M.  Howell." 


Extracts  from  the  Grahamstoivn  Journal. 

"  January  26th,  1843. 
"Last  Saturday  Mr.  J.  Howell,  at  the  head  of  a  deputation  of 
about  thirty  farmers,  the  oldest,  most  respectable,  and  wealthy  in 
the  Hantam,  was  favoured  with  an  interview  by  the  Lieut. -Gover- 
nor. His  Honour  received  them  very  courteously,  requesting  to 
know  on  whose  behalf  they  appeared,  and  who  they  represented. 
The  reply  was,  they  came  on  behalf  of  the  public  and  emigrants, 
many  of  whom,  though  in  arms,  had  not  taken  them  up  against 
Her  Majesty,  but  merely  in  self-protection  against  a  meditated 
attack  upon  them  by  the  Basutos.  .  .  .  The  deputation  next  adver- 
ted to  the  claims  of  the  Bastards  to  be  considered  an  independent 
people,  and  to  which  they  had  no  better  title  than  themselves,  many 
of  them  having  been  born  in  the  colony,  and  all  of  them  springing 


GRIQUA   CRUELTIES.  25 

from  a  race  which  had  emigrated  from  it.  His  Honour  replied  that 
the  Chief  Kok  had  land  of  his  own !  and  that  he  was  by  Act  of  Par- 
liament recognized  as  an  independent  chief,  and  lord  of  the  soil  he 
now  occupies.  The  deputation  maintained  that  the  principal  part 
of  the  country  which  the  boers  occupy,  by  right  appertains  to  the 
boers,  they  having  purchased  it  from  the  lawful  proprietors,  under 
the  sanction  of  Government  authority.  A  large  tract  of  country 
was  purchased  by  the  field-cornet  Coetze,  and  Piet  van  der  Walt, 
from  Danster  and  Mandor,  two  Bushmen  chiefs,  for  about  8,000 
sheep  and  500  head  of  cattle.  That  soon  after  this  a  small  party  of 
Hottentots  emigrated  from  the  colony,  and  took  up  their  abode  at 
Philippolis,  from  whence  they  gradually  encroached  on  the  lands  so 
purchased,  practising  the  most  unheard  of  cruelties  upon  the  neigh- 
bouring Bushmen,  and  who  are  now  nearly  extinct  in  consequence 
of  the  atrocities  committed  on  them  by  the  Bastards.  Out  of  two 
or  three  thousand  that  formerly  occupied  this  country  there  are  but 
five  kraals  left,  and  these  are  almost  reduced  to  a  wild  state.  (See 
'  Philips'  Eesearches.')  His  Honour  remarked  that  if  this  were 
proved  to  him,  he  would  take  care  that  the  Bastards  should  com- 
pensate those  whose  lands  they  had  intruded  upon.  His  Honour 
enquired  for  a  chart  of  the  country  in  question  ;  but  to  this  it  was 
replied  that  there  were  no  surveyors  among  the  Bushmen." 


Extract  from  the  Grahamstown  Journal  of  Feb.  16,  1843. 

"  No.  1.  We,  the  undersigned,  hereby  certify,  and  are  ready  to 
verify  on  oath,  that  the  statement  made  by  a  deputation  from  New 
Hantam  to  his  Honour  the  Lieut. -Governor  at  Colesberg,  that  a 
tract  of  land  which  the  Bastards  now  occupy,  that  is  to  say,  a  tract 
of  land  beyond  the  present  station  of  Philippolis,  extending  from 
Xnaapzaak  river  to  the  Drie  Baat  river,  belongs  to  the  boers,  having 
been  purchased  by  the  field-cornet  Coetze,  and  Pieter  van  der  Walt, 
from  Danster  and  another  Bushman  chief  for  a  considerable  num- 
ber of  sheep  and  cattle.  That  soon  after  this  a  small  party  of  emigrants 
emigrated  from  the  colony,  and  toolc  up  their  abode  at  Philippolis,  from 
whence  they  gradually  encroached  upon  the  lands  so  purchased,  practising 
the  most  unheard-of  cruelties  on  the  neighbouring  Bushmen,  who 
are  nearly  extinct  in  consequence  of  the  atrocities  committed  ivpon 


26  GRIQA   CRUELTIES. 

them  by  the  Bastards,  is,  from  our  personal  knowledge  of  the  cir- 
cumstances, true  and  correct. 

"  (Signed)  Johannes  Coetze,  Field-cornet, 

,,  Petrtjs  van  der  AValt, 

,,  John  van  der  Merwe, 

,,  John  Ventner, 

"  Burghers,  now  residing  in  the  district  of  Colesberg.     A  true 
copy  from  the  original  document. 

"  (Signed)  James  Howell." 


11  No.  2. — I,  Piet  Krankuil,  Bushman  captain,  lately  of  the  now- 
called  Griqua  country,  hereby  certify,  and  am  ready  to  verify  on 
oath,  that  the  greater  part  of  the  country  now  occupied  by  the 
Bastards  was,  previous  to  the  encroachments  of  these  people, 
inhabited  from  time  immemorial  by  our  nation,  and  that  part  of  the 
country  was  sold  (not  hired)  by  our  senior  captain,  Kogleman,  by  our 
consent,  to  Johannes  Coetze,  field-cornet,  and  others  not  now  known 
to  me,  for  a  considerable  number  of  sheep  and  cattle  ;  this  was  long 
ago.  The  reason  of  my  now  being  in  the  colony,  and  working  for 
my  food,  is  because  the  Bastards  took  away  all  our  cattle,  and  mur- 
dered our  people.  I  myself  have  been  several  times  attacked,  and 
my  people  have  been  attacked  and  murdered.  The  Bastards  perpe- 
trated the  most  horrid  cruelties  on  our  nation.  Alter  they  (the 
Bastards)  had  overpowered  a  Bushman  kraal,  they  would  make  a 
large  fire  and  throw  into  it  all  the  children  and  the  lambs  and  kids 
they  could  not  carry  away  with  them ;  and,  if  they  could  by  any 
chance  lay  hands  on  a  grown-up  Bushman,  they ,  would  cut  his 
throat.  I  have  known  solitary  instances  where  Bushmen  have  been 
shot  by  boers,  but  only  on  occasions  of  the  Bushmen  stealing  cattle 
and  resisting  the  re-taking.  Previous  to  the  arrival  of  the  Bastards 
in  our  land  there  were  more  Bushmen  residing  in  it  than  there  are 
now  Bastards  ;  there  are  now  only  two  kraals  left  of  Bushmen,  con- 
taining an  inconsiderable  number  of  inhabitants. 

"(Signed)  Piet  Krankuil,  his  -f  mark. 

"  Done  in  our  presence  (Signed)  James  Howell, 

,,  Christoffel  Eothman, 

,,  Johannes  Coetze. 

"  A  true  interpretation  of  a  statement  made  at  Colesberg  by  Piet 
Krankuil,  a  Bushman  chief,  the  4th  day  of  February,  1843." 


GRIQUA   CRUELTIES.  27 

"No.  3. — I,  Hendrik  Coetze,  hereby  certify,  and  am  ready  to 
verify  on  oath,  and  by  other  evidence,  that,  shortly  after  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  missionary  institution  at  Philippolis,  while  on  a 
hunting  expedition  at  the  Drie  Baat,  beyond  the  boundary,  I  met 
Hendrik  Hendriks  and  a  number  of  Bastards  ;  they  had  with  them 
1,000  head  of  cattle,  a  large  quantity  of  sheep,  and  about  100  Kaffir 
prisoners — men,  women,  and  children.  From  Drie  Baat  we  pro- 
ceeded to  Toomfontein,  where  I  met  another  troop  of  Bastards, 
having  with  them  also  a  large  number  of  cattle,  and  also  about  100 
prisoners.  These  Kaffirs  had  a  great  number  of  assegais  with  them, 
which  clearly  prove  that  many  of  their  number  had  been  killed,  the 
survivors  being  obliged  to  carry  the  arms  of  the  deceased. 

"(Signed)         H.  Coetze. 
"  A  true  translation.         (Signed)         James  Howell." 


"No.  4. — I  hereby  certify,  and  am  ready  to  verify  on  oath,  that, 
in  the  month  of  February,  1842,  a  number  of  Bastards  belonging  to 
Philippolis  passed  my  place  beyond  the  boundary,  having  with  them 
a  number  of  cattle  and  sheep.  Barend  Pienaar,  one  of  the  Bastards, 
came  to  me  and  informed  me  that  they  had  taken  the  cattle  from 
Jan  Kyllo's  brother,  and  that  they  had  cleared  the  country.  The 
Bastards  had  also  with  them  thirty-three  stand  of  arms,  which  they 
had  taken  from  the  Kaffirs. 

"  (Signed)         'Tjaed  van  dee  Walt,  jux. 

"  A  true  translation  from  the  original  document. 

"  (Signed)         James  Howell." 


"No.  5. — Some  few  years  ago,  while  travelling  in  the  Bastard 
country,  I  met  with  a  heap  of  human  bones.  On  enquiring  of  one 
Abraham  Jager,  a  Bastard,  the  occasion  of  their  being  there,  this 
man  informed  me  that  he  and  other  Bastards  had  there  caught 
thirty  Bushmen  and  cut  their  throats. 

"  A  true  translation  from  the  original  document. 

"(Signed)         James  Howell. 
"  [The  name  of  the  person  signing  this  document  is  given  to  us,  but 
our  correspondent  requests,   for  '  weighty  reasons,'  that  it  may  at 
present  be  omitted." — Ed.] 


28  GRIQUA   CRUELTIES. 

"No.  G. — I,  the  undersigned,  hereby  certify,  and  am  ready  to 
verify  on  oath,  that,  about  the  year  1826,  while  on  the  banks  of  the 
Modder  River,  I  fell  in  with  a  number  of  Kaffirs ;  I  then  sent  to 
them  a  Kaffir  I  had  brought  from  the  colony  to  speak  to  them,  and 
bring  some  of  them  up  to  our  waggons.  They  came,  and  informed 
me  they  were  flying  from  the  Griquas,  who  had  murdered  many  of 
their  people,  and  had  taken  away  all  their  cattle.  They  were  then 
living  on  roots  and  grass,  and  they  pointed  out  a  large  stone  kraal 
which  appeared  to  have  contained  recently  a  large  number  of 
cattle. 

"  (Signed)         Petrus  Joiiaxxes  Smit. 

"  A  true  translation.         (Signed)         James  Howell. 
"  The  foregoing  are  correctly  copied  from  the  Grahamstown  Journal 
of  the  dates  given. 

"R.  GODLOXTOX." 


During  a  full  decade  war  and  devastation  prevailed 
throughout  the  country  intersected  by  the  Vaal.  The 
Griquas,  under  the  Koks,  Barends,  Pienaar,  Carolus 
Batjee,  Jan  Bloem,  and  other  petty  chiefs ;  the 
Hottentots,  Koranas,  and  Bushmen,  under  their  leaders 
Africaner,  Golan,  Gert  Taaibosch,  David  Dantzer, 
Mandor,  Schecl  Cobus  (Kousopp),  and  others ;  killed 
and  plundered  each  other,  and  many  branches  of  the 
Bechoana  Kafir  nation,  r>retty  indiscriminately. 

About  the  year  1820,  however,  a  new  power  came 
upon  the  scene  ;  when  the  wars  and  ravages  began  to 
decrease. 

As  it  is  my  desire  that  every  statement  of  fact  I 
make,  and  every  political  event  I  assert,  may  be  fully 
proved  and  corroborated  by  indisputable  documentary 
and  authoritive  evidence,  I  cannot  do  better  than  give 
Attorney-General  Porter's  description  of  the  arrival  of 
the  power  referred  to. 


ARRIVAL    OF    DUTCH.  29 

Two  powers  claim  Adamantia — the  Griquas,  under 
Waterboer,  and  the  Government  of  the  Orange  Free 
State — so  that  a  very  important  subject  is  to  first  of 
all  establish  the  original  title,  territorial  right,  or 
assumption  of  dominion  upon  the  part  of  either 
claimant. 

Upon  this  very  subject  is  it  that  the  highest  law 
officer  of  the  Cape  Colony,  in  1849,  was  furnishing  an 
official  report  to  Earl  Grey,  and  wrote  : —  * 

"  About  the  year  1825,  or  perhaps  earlier,  colonial  cattle-far rners, 
suffering  from  the  droughts  so  common  in  the  northern  districts  of 
the  colony,  and  tempted  by  the  stronger  springs  and  better  herbage 
to  be  found  beyond  the  Orange  River,  began  to  drive  their  flocks 
to  the  other  side  in  search  of  temporary  pasturage.  Little  or  no 
opposition  to  these  movements  was  made  by  any  parties  claiming  to 
be  the  owners  of  the  soil.  The  regions  to  ivhich  the  colonists  first 
resorted  \  for  grass  and  tvater  could  scarcely  he  said  to  have  any  actual 
possessors.  The  Bosjesmans,  the  true  aborigines  of  the  country, 
had  either  been  exterminated  or  reduced  to  slavery,  or  hunted  into 
holes  and  caverns  in  the  mountains  by  conquerors  partly  Hottentot 
and  partly  Kafir.     The  whole  territory  was  newly  settled  and  thinly 

peopled Under  this   name  (Griqua)   political  independence 

was  claimed,  or  at  least  exercised,  and  Adam  Kok  was  declared  to 
be  supreme  chief,  or  captain.  Disputes,  however,  soon  arose  which 
split  the  population  into  two  parts,  and  finally  resulted  in  a  Griqua 
Government  under  Waterboer,  at  Griquatown,|  and  a  Griqua  Govern- 
ment under  old  Adam  Kok,  at  what  is  now  called  Philippolis. 

11  Whether  or  not  the  Griquas  were  already  in  the  country  which  they 
now  occupy  when  the  boers  first  began  to  cross  the  Orange  River,  is  a 
point  which  I  heard  fiercely  disputed  in  1845,  when  I  was  in  Griqua- 
land  in  attendance  upon  Sir  Peregrine  Maitland.     That  this 


*  See  p.  7,  "  Blue  Book,  "  Orange  River  Correspondence,  1851 — 4." 
f  This  region  comprised  South  Adamantia  and  generally  the  whole 

territory  lying  between  the  angle  of  confluence  of  the  Yaal  and  Orange 

Rivers. 

%  See  diagram  A,  end  of  Chapter  I. 


30  SETTLEMENT   OF   DUTCH. 

should  have  been  ever  mooted  showed  the  recent  origin  of  Griqua  right, 
and  it  is,  therefore,  matter  of  no  surprise  that  the  "boer  or  his  herds- 
man was  so  unresistingly  allowed  to  lead  his  cattle  to  whatever 
spring  or  spot  best  suited  him." 

It  is  here  necessary  to  explain  that  the  Griquas  with 
whom  the  boers,  or  Dutch  emigrant  farmers,  came 
into  contact,  were  those  under  Adam  Kok,  who  (as 
previously  mentioned,  and  further  to  be  referred  to), 
after  some  dispute  and  difficulty  with  the  missionary 
at  Griquatown,  in  1816,  left  that  place,  and,  with  his 
followers,  settled  at  a  spot  on  the  Orange  River  known 
as  Slijpsteen  (?  Backhouse),  which  he  eventually  aban- 
doned, and  removed  to  Philippolis  about  the  year  1820. 
Philippolis  being  many  miles  south  of  South  Adamantia, 
it  is  quite  evident  that  Attorney- General  Porter  was 
correct  in  his  view  that  the  Griquas  had  no  better 
claim  than  the  boers  to  waste  lands  visited  by  both 
parties  for  the  same  purpose — temporary  pasturage. 
Indeed,  according  to  many,  the  boers  were  decidedly 
the  first  to  enter  and  occupy  South  Adamantia,  as 
appears  from  the  italicised  passage,  stating  a  right  by 
purchase,  in  the  depositions  already  quoted  in  this 
chapter.  I  find,  moreover,  in  a  despatch  from  Major 
Warden,  British  resident  at  Bloemfontein,  dated 
August  3,  1850,  to  H.  E.,  Governor  and  High  Com- 
missioner, Sir  Harry  Smith,  the  following  statement 
which  confirms  that  above-mentioned  :* — 

a  *  The  Van  Wijk's  country  (between  the  Vaal  and  Modder 
Bivers)  was  purchased  by  the  boers  many  years  ago  from  the 
Bushman  chief,  David  Dantzer,  and  now  comes  another  claimant 
for  the  same,  stating  that  he  was  ever  considered  a  greater  chief 
than  Dantzer,  and  that  his  father  had  all  the  Bushmen  of  that  tract 

*  See  p.  46,  Annexure  20,  Blue  Book,  "  Minutes  of  Meeting  at  Nooit- 
<redacht,"'  O.F-S. 


THEIR    RIGHTS    TO    THE    LAND.  81 

of  country  under  him  for  years.  I  told  Kousopp  that  his  Excel- 
lency's proclamation  had  long  ago  settled  all  such  matters,  and  that 
the  land  belonged  to  the  boer  occupants." 

Still  further  proof  as  to  the  purchase  of  land  by  the 
boers  was  furnished  by  Assist.-Coin.-Gen.  Green,  then 
British  resident  at  Bloemfontein,  the  principal  town 
in  the  new  colony,  in  June,  1852,  in  a  very  able 
report,  entitled,  "  Notes  on  the  Orange  River  Sove- 
reignty." This  interesting  document  was  supplied  to 
Lieut. -Gen.  Sir  George  Cathcart,  High  Commissioner 
and  Governor  of  the  Cape  at  that  time.  From  it  we 
cull  the  following  extract  :* — 

"  In  the  years  1835—6  the  well-known  emigration  of  the  boers 
from  the  Colony  took  place 

"A  second  party,  under  the  guidance  of  Potgietu,  purchased 
from  the  Chief  Mataquan  that  portion  of  the  sovereignty  lying 
between  the  Vet  and  Vaal  Rivers;  and  a  third,  under  Fourie, 
obtained  in  the  same  manner,  from  the  Korana  Chief,  David 
Dantzer,  an  extensive  tract  of  country  to  the  westward  of  Bloem- 
fontein, between  the  Modder  and  Vaal."  f 

Before  proceeding  with  Mr.  Porter's  narrative  of  the 
boer  settlement  north  of  the  Orange,  as  also  bearing 
directly  upon  the  disputed  point  of  first  occupation,  I 
quote  from  a  "  Despatch  from  Governor  Sir  H.  G. 
Smith  to  Earl  Grey,  King  William's  Town,  Kafraria, 
January  20,  1851,"  this  important  paragraph : 

"  X  4.  I  must  here  assure  your  Lordship  that  Captain  Adam 
Kok  and  his  followers  are  mere  squatters,  and  have  no  more  hereditary 
right  to  the  country  in  question  than  the  boers  themselves,  who  have 
been  in  the  habit,  for  many  years,  for  the  sake  of  pasturage,  of 
driving  their  herds  and  nocks  over  the  Orange  Elver." 

This  distinct  opinion  is  very  valuable,  as  being  that 

*  See  p.  50,  Blue  Book  (2)  "  Orange  River  Correspondence,"  1851 — 4. 
f  This  very  tract  of  country  is  now  claimed  by  the  Griqua  Waterboer. 
J  See  p.  82,  Blue  Book,  "  Orange  River  Correspondence,"  1851-4. 


32       ATTORNEY-GENERAL  TORTER's  REPORT. 

of  perhaps  the  wisest  and  most  popular  of  all  the  Cape 
Colony  Governors. 

Attorney-General  Porter's  narrative  continues  from 
where  Ave  left  off : — 

"  At  first,  this  sort  of  occupation  was  temporary,  and  ceased  with 
the  drought  which  led  to  it.  But  imperceptibly  it  became  perma- 
nent, sometimes,  perhaps,  taken  by  strong  hand,  but  more  frequently 
made  the  subject  of  purchase  from  some  Griqua,  who,  making  little 
or  no  use  of  his  land,  was  ready  to  sell  it  upon  very  easy  terms. 
But  it  was  not  until  many  years  had  elapsed  that  the  emigration 
became  a  matter  of  political  importance.  True,  indeed,  even  its 
beginnings  were  discountenanced  by  the  Colonial  Government.  Our 
frontier  authorities  were  enjoined  as  much  as  possible  to  prevent  it  ;* 
but,  as  in  the  case  of  almost  every  successive  movement  beyond  the 
boundary  for  the  time  being,  from  the  period  when  the  Cape  Colony 
was  contained  within  the  Cape  Town  military  lines,  till  now  that  it 
has  reached  the  Orange  Eiver  and  the  Keiskamma,  all  the  efforts  of 
the  Colonial  Government  to  stay  the  progress  of  the  people  proved 
unavailing.  Down,  however,  to  what  may  be  called  the  Great 
Emigration,  which  set  in  in  1836,  the  boers  beyond  the  boundary 
gave  little  trouble,  and  excited,  except  in  a  few  far-seeing  men, 
little  apprehension.  But  matters  became  truly  serious  when  an 
emigration  began  which  was  in  its  character  essentially  political  and 
anti-English,  f  springing  in  no  small  degree  out  of  old  national  feel- 
ings, embittered  by  what,  conducted  as  it  was,  was  considered  and 
called  robbery, — the  slave  emancipation. 

*  Why  this  opposition  to  the  Dutch  colonization?  Certainly  not  from 
the  native-protecting  pretended  philanthropic  motives  given  by  the 
British  Government;  because  British  policy  and  British  aggrandizement  * 
at  the  expense  of  natives  in  every  quarter  of  the  globe,  prove  such 
reason  both  absurd  and  hypocritical.  No!  the  real  motive  was  doubt- 
less selfishness  and  jealousy,  the  dislike  to  see  other  people  get  lands 
for  nothing  as  we  had  done,  the  hatred  to  see  Dutch  colonists  thrive  as 
we  had,  and  the  dread  to  see  the  Colony  unpeopled. 

f  One  would  have  naturally  thought  that  matters  would  have  been 
much  more  serious  had  these  Dutch  haters  of  British  rule  remained  in 
the  colony.  Had  it  not  been  for  the  fact  that  the  Colonial  and  Home 
Governments  were  jealous  of  them  moving  off,  settling,  and  succeeding 
elsewhere,  they  would  certainly  have  rejoiced  at  the  voluntary  exit  of 
so  many  disaffected  subjects. 


ATTORNEY-GENERAL  PORTER'S  REPORT.        3  3 

"  The  emigrants,  through  many  dangers  and  much  loss,  reached 
Natal,    and,  after   destroying    Dingaan,    the   most    powerful    and 
ferocious  of  the  native  chiefs  who  had  tried  to  resist  them,  first  by 
treachery  and  next  by  force,  they  proclaimed  a  Batavian  republic. 
The  assertion  at  Natal  of  British  sovereignty  by  force  of  arms  having 
become  necessary,  one  effect  of  this  measure  was  to  send  over  the 
Drakensberg  mountains  a  number  of  emigrants  who  carried  with 
them,  into  what  is  now  the  Orange  Eiver  Sovereignty,  a  rooted 
antipathy  to  British  rule, — whilst  another  effect  was,  that  the  tide 
of  emigration,  instead  of  flowing  into  Natal,  was  thenceforth  stayed 
at  the  Drakensberg,  to  spread  and  spend  itself  over  the  whole  land 
between  those  mountains  and  the  Great  Eiver.     Then  began  a  state 
of  things  too  well  known  to  need  description.     The  boers,  with  their 
guns  in  their  hands,  disputed  native  titles  in  all  directions,  and  as 
their  antagonists  held  in  general  only  assegais,   the  boers  got   the 
better  in  the  argument.     True  it  was  that  there  were  native  titles 
which  covered  every  inch  of  the  entire  country ;  nay,  that  in  many 
cases  the  same  tract  of  land  was  loudly  claimed  by  several  chiefs  at 
once.     The  disputes  of  Maroko  and  Moshesh,  and  of  Sikonyella  and 
Moshesh,  not  to  speak  of  others,  are  well  known  to  all  who  take  an 
interest  in  such  controversies.     But  the  boers  regarded  those  native 
claims  to  immense  possessions  as  the  common  foible  of  all  rude 
tribes,    and  practically  evinced  their  determination  to   judge  for 
themselves  what  land  was  so  occupied  as  to  be  really  and  legiti- 
mately the  property  of  tribes  who  had  come  there  upon  the  same  sort  of 
errand  as  themselves   so  recently  before   their  own   arrival.      In   this 
manner,  and  not  without  much  mutual  recrimination,  it  came  to 
pass  that  emigrants  from  the  Colony  settled  themselves  down  in 
many  parts  *  of  what  is  now  the  new  sovereignty.     They  assumed 
absolute  independence.      They  established  something  which  they 
called  a  government,  mimicked  from  the  old  Colony.     They  had 
their  landrosts,  their  field-cornets,  their  volksraads." 

Attorney-General  Porter's  narration  of  events,  to- 
gether with  the  statements  of  Major  Warden  and  Sir 
Harry  Smith,  clearly  establish  some  very  important 
facts,  viz.  : — 

*  South  Adamantia  amongst  other  parts ;  although  there,  at  least, 
there  were  not  any  native  titles  to  dispute,  and  only  here  and  there 
a  rival  Griqua  claim  of  no  more  ancient  existence  than  their  own. 

D 


34  CONCLUSIONS. 

1.  That  the  emigrant  farmers  found  no  one  except  Bushmen 
with  whom  to  dispute  territorial  rights ;  that  but  few  of  them  existed; 
and  that  they  sold  their  rights  to  the  boers. 

2.  That  the  title  to  land  by  squatter's  rights,  or  by  the  occupa- 
tion of  what  may  legitimately  be  considered  "  waste  lands,"  applies 
equally  to  boers  and  Griquas,  whose  arrival  and  settlement  between 
the  Orange  and  Vaal  Rivers  was  so  evidently  contemporaneous. 

3.  That  in  reality  the  best  right  any  of  the  Griquas  possessed 
to  the  lands  they  claimed  was  when  a  boer  either  hired  a  farm  or 
bought  the  lease  from  them. 

From  the  year  1820  until  1845  the  numbers  and 
possessions  of  the  emigrant  farmers  continued  steadily 
to  increase  :  they  governed  themselves,  and  gradually 
became  a  power  in  South  Africa. 

Having  explained  the  arrival  and  settlement  of  both 
the  boers  and  Griquas  in  Adamantia  and  the  adjacent 
country,  before  describing  the  events  which,  in  1845, 
led  to  the  forcible  resumption  of  British  sovereignty 
over  the  boers,  it  is  necessary  that  we  revert  to  the 
Griquas,  and  see  what  they  were  doing  in  the  meanwhile. 

*From  the  sworn  deposition  of  an  old  Griqua  official, 
one  of  the  original  emigrants  and  squatters  who  settled 
in  the  Campbell-lands,  we  are  enabled  to  fill  in  the 
principal  historical  and  political  events  until  the  period 
when  British  intervention  made  both  boers  and  Griquas, 
for  a  time,  submit  to  the  Queen's  sovereignty  again, 
and  resume  the  allegiance  their  emigration  had  placed 
in  abeyance. 

*  This  deposition  was  taken  before  Mr.  J.  G.  Siebert,  Landrost 
of  Fanresniith,  at  that  place,  on  the  5th  of  February,  1863;  and  was 
obtained  as  evidence  and  information  for  the  use  of  a  land 
commission  appointed  about  that  time,  by  the  Government  of  the 
Orange  Free  State,  to  inquire  into  and  investigate  certain  claims  of 
that  State  to  the  Campbell  lands.  Vide  p.  10,  Annexures,  Blue  Book 
"  Minutes  of  Meeting  at  Nooitgedacht,"  O.F.S. 


DECLARATION    OF    H.    HENDRIKSE.  35 

"J,  Hendrik  Hendrikse,  formerly  Griqua  Government  Secretary  f 
declare  faithfully  and  solemnly  the  following  circumstances  : — 

"  I  was  present  in  the  year  1811  with  the  first  emigration  of  the 
Griqua  nation  from  the  Kamiesbergen,  in  the  Cape  Colony,  to  over 
the  Orange  Eiver,  to  a  place  later  called  Griqua  Town.  We  were 
sent  by  our  lawful  Captain,  Adam  Kok.     .     .     . 

"  The  before  mentioned  Adam  Kok  made  over  his  Government  to 
his  son,  Cornelius  Kok.     .     .     . 

1 '  The  latter  did  not  come  with  us,  but  we  went  under  the  com- 
mand of  his  two  sons,  Adam-^-commonly  called  Dam — and  Cornelius 
Kok,  the  last  Chief  of  Campbell. 

"  About  the  year  1815  old  Cornelius  himself  came  there,  and  on 
his  death — which  took  place  at  Koukonops  Drift,  on  the  Yaal  Eiver, 
he  nominated  his  son,  Dam  Kok,  as  Chief  of  the  whole  Griqua 
nation,  with  all  its  grounds,  and  his  son,  Cornelius,  was  made  Chief 
of  the  family  branch  of  '  de  Koks.'  This  was  done  in  accordance 
with  the  Griqua  laws  and  customs.  It  was  then  also  recognised  by 
the  British  Government ;  for  the  first  mentioned  received  from  them 
a  staff  of  office,  and  the  last-mentioned  a  family  staff — being  a  cane 
with  a  golden  knob. 

"  The  grounds  of  which  they  then  took  possession,  by  command  of 
their  grandfather  as  well  as  their  father,  were  waste  and  unin- 
habited.    The  ground  then  extended : — 

/    *"  On  the  west,  to  the  Orange  Eiver;  on  the  south,  to  the  Vaal\ 
/  Eiver  ;  on  the  east,  to  the  Harts  Eiver  ;  and  o  n  the  north,  to  a  place 
I  called  Keis,  on  the  Orange  Eiver,  with  the  Kafir  line  round  to  Bout- 
\  chap,  on  the  Harts  Eiver  ;  but   this  line  was  afterwards  half  way 
I  between  Campbell  and  Boutchap,  because  the  last  mentioned  place/ 
was  given  up  to  Barend  Barends,  but  now  it  is  under  Campbell." 

The  distinct  definition  of  these  boundaries  has  be- 
come a  very  important  matter,  since  the  present 
Griqua  chief  put  forth  a  most  impudent  claim,  utterly 
unwarrantable,  to  lands  far  beyond  these  lines  so 
clearly  stated  by  Hendrik  Hendrikse,  in  whose  cor- 
roboration very  ample  evidence  exists,  and  whose  de- 
finition I  have  decided  to  maintain  as  that  of  the  very 

*  See  diagram  A  (end  of  chap.  I). 

D   2 


36  A    MISSIONARY    STIRRETH    UP    STRIFE. 

land  rightly  pertaining  to  the  Griquas  at  the  present 
day,  with  but  one  addition  (known  as  Albania),  and 
but  one  exception  (the  Campbell-lands). 

To  resume  our  extracts  from  Hendrikse's  deposition  : 

"  Adam,  or  Dam  Kok,  was  appointed  to  rule  at  Griqua  Town, 
and  Cornelius  Kok  at  Campbell 

"  About  the  year  1816,  differences  arose  between  Dam  Kok,  the 
Chief  of  Griqua  Town,  and  the  missionary  residing  there.  The  dif- 
ference arose  about  punishing  criminals  guilty  of  capital  crimes, 
whom  Dam  Kok  wished  to  have  punished,  and  against  which  the 
missionary  objected." 

It  seems  that  the  rev.  gentleman  cherished  some 
vague  Utopian  hope  to  found  another  Eden  (a  half  to 
three-quarter  caste  one  this  time)  in  the  wilderness. 
Dam  Kok  had  a  very  laudable  and  much  provoked 
desire  to  establish  an  African  edition  of  the  worthy 
Calcraft  as  a  permanent  institution.  To  prevent  this 
abomination  worked  the  missionary  tooth  and  nail ; 
succeeding,  deponent  testify eth,  without  extreme  toil, 
in  converting  many  of  the  heterogeneous  gathering  of 
varied  race  and  colour  to  his  views.  So  Dam  Kok — 
the  accursed — had  to  remove  him  from  the  Arcadian 
vicinity,  where,  in  future,  such  of  the  disorderly,  re- 
bellious "  contents  "  as  became  homicides  had  a  glorious 
time  of  it— no  other  punishments,  no  such  atrocities 
and  abominations  as  jails,  treadmills,  hard  labour,  nor 
solitary  confinement  being  known  amongst  this  primi- 
tive people. 

That  the  rev.  gentleman  should  so  easily  have 
caused  so  serious  a  schism  in  the  camp  of  his  enter- 
tainer cannot  be  a  matter  of  surprise  to  people  who 
chance  to  have  had  the  pleasure  of  a  personal  acquaint- 
ance with  those  euphoniously-named  beings,  the 
Griquas.     Such  enlightened  travellers  will  experience 


EVULSION    OF   THE    FIRST    WATERBOER.  37 

Ibut  faint  difficulty  in  appreciating  the  fact  that,  amongst 
old  Dam's  mixed  breeds — comprehending  every  colour 
from  deepest  black  to  palest,  most  sickly-looking 
yellow — such  accidents  as  killing  a  man  on  purpose, 
when  the  beloved  beverage  known  so  poetically,  so 
etherially,  as  "  Cape  Smoke  "^was  to  be  obtained,  were 
by  no  means  very  unlikely ;  ergo,  it  follows,  as  a 
simple  logical  conclusion,  that  these  gentry  would 
look  with  peculiar  favour  upon  the  reverend  proposi- 
tion and  any  prominent  member  of  their  tribe  who 
might  second  it  and  oppose  the  old  chief.  Such  an 
individual  appeared  in  the  person  of  one '  Andries 
Waterboer,  father  of  the  present  Griqua  chief  who 
claims  the  diamond  fields. 

It  was  at  this  time  that  old  Dam  Kok,  in  the  words 
of  Hendrikse : — 

"Left  the  Government  of  Griqua  Town  to  his  uncle,  Adam  Kok, 
commonly  called  '  Kort  Adam,'  and  went  up  a  little  higher  on  the 
Orange  River  to  a  place  now  called  '  Slijpsteen.'  The  provisional 
captain,  'Kort  Adam,'  being  prevented,  through  much  work  (he 
was  a  blacksmith)  doing  everything  as  Captain,  again  nominated  a 
Bushman  Hottentot — who  had  followed  Adam  Kok  as  '  Achterrijder,' 
(a  sort  of  groom),  and  then  acted  as  messenger  (or  constable)  at  the 
place — to  manage  the  local  affairs  of  Griqua  Town.  This  was 
Waterboer 

"As  the  missionaries  sided  with  Waterboer  and  against  Dam 
Kok  .  .  .  they  contrived  to  effect  that  the  British  Government 
recognized  Waterboer  as  Chief,  or  at  least  made  a  treaty  with 
him/"     .     .     . 

"Dam  Kok  then  resided  at  Philippolis,  where  he  was  also  recog- 
nized as  Chief  by  the  British  Government. 

"Waterboer  then  went  out  with  commando  to  take  cattle"  (to 
steal  them  is  meant),  "even  as  far  as  Sleutelspoort,  near  to 
I'auresmith,  to  Jan  Bloem,  where  he  lifted  in  one  night  more  than 

*  Treaty  between  Sir  B.  D'Urban  and  Waterboer,  1834. 


38  BOUNDARY  MADE  BETWEEN  CAMPBELL  AND  GRIQUA  TOWN. 

400  head  of  cattle,  whilst  the  men  were  at  Philippolis ;  and  then 
also  disputed  the  right  of  possession  of  Campbell  with  Cornelius 
Kok." 

The  missionary's  protege  and  his  followers  do  not 
seem  to  have  been  a  very  comfortable  set  to  have  as 
near  neighbours — in  fact,  to  be  within  raiding-  distance 
of.  The  reverend  gentleman  seems  to  have  inculcated 
an  entirely  new  version  of  the  whole  ten  command- 
ments. Murder  being,  by  the  new  code,  venial ; 
robbery,  no  doubt,  was  deemed  rather  virtuous  than 
otherwise. 

Mr.  Ilendrikse  continues  : — 

"  Dam  Kok,  as  being  chief  of  the  whole  Griqua  nation,  on 
hearing  all  this,  went  with  his  father,  and  compelled  them  to  make 
peace,  in  the  presence  of  Dr.  Smith  and  many  others,  in  the  follow- 
ing manner:  He  fixed  a  boundary  line  between  Griqua  Town  and 
Campbell,  resigned  his  government  of  Griqua  Town  to  Waterboer 
(for  the  missionaries  had  already  spoilt  matters),  and  Cornelius  Kok 
had  the  government  of  Campbell  with  its  grounds. 

"The  boundary  line  fixed  between  Griqua  Town  and  Campbell 
was  as  follows  : — 

*  n  From  the  drift  through  Yaal  River,  called  Koukonap,  on  the\ 
north,  to  Withuis  ;  from  there  to  a  great  tree  half-way  between 
Campbell  and  Griqua  Town ;  from  there  to  Kogelbeen  ;  from  there 
half  way  to  Daniel's  Kuil ;  and  from  there  half  way  to  Bout-  \ 
chap  (all  the  half  ways  are  reckoned  from  Campbell) ;  and  from 
Harts  River,  and  down  along  Harts  River  till  in  Vaal  River ; 
and  down  along   Yaal  River  to  the  first  mentioned    drift,    Kou- , 

Uionap."  / 

This  accurate  definition  of  the  exact  boundaries  of 
the  Campbell  lands,  as  well  as  of  the  original  line 
made  between  Campbell  and  Griqua  Town,  about  the 
year  1820,  is  extremely  valuable,  and  requires  to  be 
carefully  remembered  ;  proving,  as  it  does,  how  entirely 

*  Vide  diagram  A  (end  of  chap.  I). 


HISTORICAL   EVENTS   (GRIQUA).  39 

the  two  chiefs  were  independent  of  each  other,  and 
how  distinctly  their  lands  were  marked  off  and  sepa- 
rated by  their  superiors — facts  now  shirked,  evaded, 
and  denied  by  Waterboer,  the  Chief  of  Griqua  Town,  in 
order  to  put  forth  his  fraudulent  claim  to  the  diamon- 
diferous  Campbell  lands  and  South  Adamantia. 

"  After  the  ground  on  the  north  of  the  Vaal  Eiverhad  been  made 
right,  Dam  Kok  exchanged  (purchased  or  obtained  by  exchange) 
the  ground  on  the  south  of  Yaal  River  from  the  Bushmen,  and  they 
then  all  stood  under  the  government  of  Philippolis.  Dam  Kok  then 
died. 

"  Cornelius  Kok  then  sold  in  an  illegal  manner  lands  on  this,  or 
the  south  side,  of  Yaal  River ;  but  of  this  hereafter. 

' '  He  also  assisted  Abram  Kok  to  fight  against  his  brother,  Adam 
Kok  (the  legitimate  successor  to  the  paramount  chieftainship),  in 
1837,  Adam  Kok  drove  them  all  away  to  the  so-called  David's  Graf. 
The  war  was  waged  about  the  chieftainship  between  Abram  and 
Adam  Kok  ;  and  Adam  Kok  was  then  recognized  as  chief  in  his 
father's  (Dam  Kok's)  place." 


40  INCREASE   OF   EMIGRANTS. 


CHAPTER  III. 

British  Intervention  North  of  the  Orange  River  ; 
Creation  of  an  Orange  River  Sovereignty  ;  its 
Abandonment  ;  Origin  of  the  Orange  Free  State. 

Hostilities  between  boers  and  Griquas:  Latter  Assisted  by 
Br  itis — Establishment  of  British  Kesident. — Attorney- 
General  Porter's  Beport  thereon,  and  Sir  P.  Maitland's 
Treaty  with  Adam  Kok. — Boundary  of  the  latter' s  Terri- 
tory.— Proclamation  by  Sir  H.  Smith  of  the  Orange  River 
Territory  as  a  British  Sovereignty. — Hostilities  ensue. — 
British  Victorious;  and  Sir  H.  Smith  rectifies  Sir  P. 
Maitland's  Treaty  with  Griquas. — By  the  new  Treaty  the 
Boers  become  perpetual  Leaseholders  of  their  Farms  in 
Griqua  Land. — Abandonment  of  Sovereignty  ;  and  Conven- 
tion Establishing  Orange  Free  State. 

During  some  years  no  event  occurred  in  the  Orange 
River  Territory  either  politically  or  historically  im- 
portant. 

Up  to  the  Vaal  River  the  whole  country  was  fast 
getting  entirely  occupied  by  the  Dutch  emigrant 
farmers,  whilst  many  others  had  already  crossed  the 
Vaal  and  founded  the  Transvaal,  now  known  as  the 
South  African  republic. 

At  length,  in  the  year  1845,  a  serious  trouble  came 
upon  the  new  colony. 


ASSIST. -COM. -GEN.    GREEN*  S   REPORT.  41 

In  the  words  of  Assist.-Com.-Gen.  Green,  Adam 
Kok,  the  Griqua  chief,  "  began  to  be  alarmed  lest  the 
whole  of  his  territory  should  pass  into  the  hands  of  the 
newcomers,  which,  added  to  the  jealousy  of  the  people 
themselves  at  the  prosperity  of  the  industrious  boers, 
and  a  desire  to  break  their  long  leases  (usually  held  for 
40  years),  caused  them  to  watch  eagerly  for  a  pretext  to 
get  rid  of  their  tenants.  This  was  not  long  wanting. 
A  Morolong,  who,  though  not  properly  a  subject  of 
Adam  Kok,  yet  acknowledged  him  as  chief,  having 
been  flogged  for  theft  by  a  boer  field-cornet,  laid 
a  complaint  before  him ;  the  Griqua  chief  sent  some 
men  to  arrest  the  boer,*  which,  being  resisted,  an 
exchange  of  shots  took  place.  The  boers  immediately 
went  into  laagers,  and  the  hostilities  commenced,  in 
which  the  Griquas  were  assisted  by  Her  Majesty's 
troops,  and  which  terminated  in  the  defeat  of  the 
boers  at  Swart  Koppjes,  in  1845  ;  immediately  after 
which  Major  Sutton  was  established  in  the  country  as 
British  Eesident,  with  a  small  force  to  support  his 
authority,  which  was  only  to  extend  to  the  arbitration 
of  disputes  between  natives  and  whites." 

I,  for  one,  would  never  utter  a  word  against  the 
support  of  natives  when  in  the  right,  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, as  I  ever  have  done,  would  help  them  to  the 
utmost  of  my  ability;  but,  exactly  on  the  same  principle, 


*  To  those  -unacquainted  with  South.  Africa  this  affair  will  not 
appear  in  full  significance.  I  therefore  supply  this  note  to  point  out 
that  no  white  people  ever  submitted  to  native  jurisdiction  in  that  part 
of  the  world;  whilst  the  attempt  of  Adam  Kok,  the  chief  of  a  few 
hundred  idle,  drunken,  utterly  useless  and  vagabond  mixed  breeds,  to 
arrest  one  of  the  numerous  and  thriving  members  of  the  new  colony, 
where  the  law  was  sufficient  and  exterritoriality  prevailed,  was  a  most 
impudent  aggression. 


42  UNJUST   BRITISH   INTERVENTION. 

would  oppose  them,  and  support  tlieir  antagonists, 
when  they  were  in  the  wrong. 

British  armed  intervention  against  the  emigrant 
farmers  in  the  affair  under  notice  was  most  unnecessary 
and  unjust,  the  Griquas  having  no  right  whatever  to 
attempt  the  arrest,  with  guns  in  their  hands,  of  a  boer 
official  who  had  simply  done  his  duty.  The  act  was 
clearly  illegal. 

The  British  Resident's  report  continues  : — 

"  The  system  of  native  protection  which  influenced  the  British 
Government  had,  in  the  year  1842,  induced  them  to  interfere 
between  the  emigrants  at  Port  Natal  and  the  natives."  .... 

(Those  natives,  be  it  remembered,  who  had  so 
treacherously  and  barbarously  massacred  the  emigrant 
Eetief  and  a  number  of  his  followers.) 

"Many  of  them  in  consequence  recrossed  the  Drakensberg  with 
feelings  considerably  embittered  towards  British  rule,  hoping,  in 
what  now  is  the  sovereignty,  to  escape  it.  In  this  they  were  sub- 
sequently undeceived  by  the  Swart  Koppjes  affair." 

To  continue  the  narration  of  events  in  consecutive 
order,  I  must  now  revert  to  another  "  Memorandum," 
bearing  date  Capetown,  August  4,  1852,  and  drawn 
up,  this  time,  for  the  information  of  Governor  Lieut. - 
Gen.  Cathcart,  by  Attorney- General  Porter.  It  is 
important  as  defining  the  nature  of  the  relativejposition 
occupied  by  the  boers,  the  Griquas,  and  the  British 
Government  subsequent  to  the  battle  at  Zwart 
Koppjes,  and  as  also  explaining  the  first  important 
treaty  entered  into  between  the  Griquas  and  the 
British,  a  result  of  the  then  Cape  Governor's  visit  to 
the  Orange  River  territory. 


ATTORNEY-GENERAL  PORTER^  REPORT.        43 

*  "  When  Sir  P.  Maitland  visited  what  is  now  the  Sovereignty, 
in  1845,  his  object  was  to  settle  existing  and  prevent  future  disputes 
without  asserting  British  dominion,  with  its  attendant  expenses  and 
responsibilities.  He  found  the  boers  there,  and  found  them  deter- 
mined to  remain  there ;  and  found  them,  moreover,  in  the  way  of 
gradually  gaining  the  whole  country.  He  therefore  proposed  to 
Adam  Kok  to  define  his  entire  territory,  and  then  to  divide  that 
entire  territory  into  two  parts,  one  of  which  was  to  be  for  ever 
reserved  for  the  Grriquas,  and  the  other  of  which  parts  was  to  be  for 
ever  open  to  be  occupied  by  the  boers.  The  part  to  be  reserved  for 
the  Griquas  was  called  the  '  inalienable '  territory,  and  the  part  to 
be  occupied  by  the  boers  was  called  the  '  alienable  '  territory.  Boers 
were  settled  in  both  parts,  though  in  very  unequal  numbers.  Some 
had  professed  to  purchase  what  in  England  we  should  call  the  fee 
simple ;  some  had  hired  farms  for  a  term  of  years.  .  .  .  Leases 
which  in  their  inception  had  been  made  for  forty  years  or  under 
were  to  be  allowed  to  work  themselves  out  by  effluxion  of  time,  and 
as  leases  gradually  expired  in  the  '  inalienable  '  territory  the  boers 
were  to  be  obliged  to  quit  it  altogether ;  but  in  the  '  alienable  ' 
territory  the  lands  were  to  be  capable  of  being  let  at  all  times  on 
lease  to  boers  by  the  instrumentality  of  the  British  Eesident.  A 
small  quit  rent  was  to  be  paid  to  the  British  Eesident  by  all  lessees, 
as  well  within  the  '  inalienable '  as  the  '  alienable  '  territory,  one- 
half  of  which  quit  rent  was  to  go  to  Adam  Kok,  as  the  owner  of 
the  country,  and  the  other  half  to  be  retained  by  the  British 
Eesident  towards  defraying  the  charges  of  the  residency." 

The  above  arrangement  had  but  a  short  life ;  but* 
from  the  treaty  entered  into  between  Governor  Lieut. 
Gen.  Sir  Peregrine  Maitland  and  the  Chief,  Adam 
Kok,  we  are  enabled  to  prove  the  highly-important 
fact  that  everywhere  outside  a  certain  boundary  the 
right  of  the  boers  to  acquire  land  was  then  admitted 
they  did  eventually  acquire  the  whole  of  those  "  alien- 
able "  lands,  and  within  a  year  or  two  became,  by  a 


*   Vide  p.  79,  Blue  Book  (No.  2),  "Orange  River  Correspondence, 
1851—4." 


44  ADAM   KOK'S   BOUNDARIES. 

British  law,  perpetual  leaseholders  thereof;  yet  now 
comes  the  Griqua  Waterboer  from  the  north  side  of 
the  Vaal,  whose  name  was  never  so  much  as  mentioned 
in  these  treaties,  with  Griquas  concerned  in  territory 
south  of  the  Vaal,  and  audaciously  claims  nearly  the 
whole  of  the  very  u  alienable"  lands  dealt  with  and 
settled  so  long-  ag-o  ! 

*  By  "  Article  5  "  of  the  treaty,  the  boundary  of 
the  "  inalienable  "  territory  of  Adam  Kok's  Griquas  is 
defined  as  follows  .  (See  accompanying  Diagram  B.) 

/  "From  David's  Graf,  at  the  confluence  of  the  Riet  and  Modder 
'rivers  ;  thence  along  the  Riet  Biver  to  where  Krom  Elbow  Spruit 
falls  into  the  said  Eiet  Eiver ;  thence  up  Krom  Elbow  Spruit  to 
where  Van  Zyl's  Spruit  falls  into  it ;  thence  up  Yan  Zyl's  Spruit  to 
its  source  from  between  the  Pram  Bergen ;  thence  along  a  direct 
line  to  be  drawn  from  the  neck  of  Pram  Bergen,  at  the  source  of 
Van  Zyl's  Spruit,  to  Braay  Paal,  which  line,  running  generally 
east,  holds  the  summit  of  a  ridge  extending  from  the  said  neck  to 
within  about  a  mile  of  Braay  Paal ;  thence  from  Braay  Paal,  the 
boundary  between  Adam  Kok  and  the  land  occupied  by  the  chief, 
Le  Pui,  to  the  junction  of  that  boundary  with  Bosjes  Spruit ;  thence 
along  Bosjes  Spruit  to  where  the  same  falls  into  the  Orange  River; 
thence  along  the  said  Orange  Eiver  as  far  as  Ramah  ;  and  thence  in  a 
direct  line  to  David1  s  Graf  aforesaid." 


V 


\ 

But  inasmuch  as  all  leaseholds  both  bought  and 
hired  by  boers  from  Griquas  were  declared  by  the 
Governor  to  be  terminable  in  forty  years,  very  great 
dissatisfaction  was  created  amongst  the  white  settlers  ; 
and  it  is  quite  evident  that  extreme  injustice  would 
have  been  done  to  many  of  them  by  the  unreserved, 
absolute,  and  sweeping  nature  of  the  law  which  treated 


*  Vide  p.  129,  Blue  Book  (No.  2),  "  Orange  River  Correspondence, 
1851—4." 


a  governor's  courtesy.  45 

every  one  of  them  as  a  land  swindler,  compelling  them, 
right  or  wrong,  moreover,  to  abandon  the  farms  they 
had  cultivated,  with  homesteads,  improvements,  and 
everything,  no  matter  how  outright  might  have  been 
their  purchase  of  the  freehold  ! 

From  Mr.  Green's  "  Memorandum"  we  obtain 
further  information  that  "-Andries  Pretorius,  the 
acknowledged  leader  of  the  emigrant  boers,  made  an 
effort,  in  the  year  1847,  towards  a  reconciliation 
between  them  and  the  government  by  proceeding  to 
Graham's  Town  to  lay  their  case  before  Sir  Henry 
Pottinger,  then  Governor  of  the  Cape  ;  but,  being 
considered  a  resident  of  Natal,  Sir  Henry  objected  to 
receiving  any  statement  except  through  the  Lieut.  - 
Governor  of  that  settlement,  and  would  not  even 
grant  an  audience  to  Pretorius,  who  returned  to  his 
people  goaded  to  a  degree  at  the  futility  of  his  long 
journey,  and  a  treatment  which,  however  proper,  was 
not  politic  !  ! !  " 

This  event  is  too  astounding  for  comment !  Pretorius, 
who,  in  fact,  was  a  resident  of  the  independent  com- 
munity beyond  the  Orange  Eiver,  who  fled  from 
Natal  immediately  that  country  became  subject  to 
British  rule,  was  considered  a  resident  of  the  place 
that  had  no  just  claim  upon  him,  where  he  did  not 
and  would  not  reside  ! 

No  wonder  that  hostilities  broke  out  ere  long 
between  boers  and  British  again. 

Matters  came  to  a  crisis  when  Sir  Harry  Smith 
(Sir  H.  Pottinger's  successor)  paid  a  flying  visit  to 
the  country  early  in  1848,  and  proclaimed,  on  the 
3rd  of  February,  the  Queen's  sovereignty  "  over  the 
territories  north  of  the  Great  Orange  River,    including 


46  ANNEXATION   a   la   BRITANNIA. 

the  territories  of  the  native  chiefs,  Moshesh,  Adam 
Kok,  &c.  (and  the  boors  should  have  been  added), 
so  far  north  as  the  Vaal  River,  and  east  to  the 
Drakensberg  or  Quatlamba  Mountains." 

This  settled  the  matter  in  a  very  simple  way,  by 
taking  possession  of  the  whole  country,  annexing  vi 
et  armis  all  lands  in  dispute  and  not  in  dispute,  regard- 
less of  any  and  every  claim,  and  to  whomsoever 
belonging ! 

It  was  a  vast  tract  of  country  thus  made  British  by 
a  dash  of  the  dashing  Sir  Harry  Smith's  goose  quill ; 
forming  a  huge  triangle,  with  the  junction  of  the  Vaal 
and  Orange  rivers  as  its  apex,  the  two  rivers  as  its 
two  sides,  and  the  Drakensberg  Mountains  (over 
against  Natal)  as  its  base  ;  in  length  full  300  miles 
from  east  to  west ;  in  breadth  200  ;  comprising  at 
least  60,000  square  miles  of  ground ! 

We  must  now  speak  of  the  annexed  country  (a 
pretty  word,  that,  for  robbed)  as  the  "  Orange  River 
Sovereignty." 

As  Mr.  Green  ably  stated  : — 

"  But,  as  if  the  proclamation,  as  far  as  already  noticed,  were  not 
sufficiently  an  apple  of  discord  thrown  into  the  unhappy  sovereignty, 
there  is  a  special  clause  in  it  to  embroil  the  native  and  white  in- 
habitants ;  for  in  the  fourth  paragraph  we  read  that  '  One  condition 
upon  which  Her  Majesty's  subjects  hold  their  lands  is,  that  every 
able-bodied  man  turns  out  with  arms,  or  as  a  constable,  for  the 
defence  of  Her  Majesty  and  her  allies'  ....  As,  when  two  native 
chiefs  are  in  hostility  to  each  other,  the  one  whose  part  is  espoused 
by  the  government  is  considered  an  ally  and  the  other  an  enemy, 
the  effect  was  simply  to  bring  the  boers  into  collision  with  one  or 
other  of  the  native  tribes  with  whom  they  had  no  quarrel,  and  from 

whom  they  had  always  experienced  kindness  and  respect 

The  immediate  effect  of  the  paragraph  referring  to  the  tenure  of 
lands  among  the  boers  in  the  sovereignty  was  to  spread  consterna- 


SIR   HARRY   SMITH'S   POLICY.  47 

tion  among  them.  .  .  .  The  murmurs  of  discontent  which  arose 
were  speedily  fanned  into  a  flame  of  open  rebellion,*  which  dis- 
played itself  in  the  beginning  of  July,  1848,  upon  the  first  attempt 
made  by  Major  Warden  to  lay  out  their  farms,  as  directed  in  Sir 
H.  Smith's  proclamation  of  March,  1848 ;  when  they  drove  the 
British  Eesident  and  the  Magistrates  of  Winburg  and  Smithfield 
(the  only  officials  in  the  country),  with  the  small  detachment  of 
troops,  across  the  Orange  Eiver.  Sir  H.  Smith  then  brought  up 
a  force  of  500  men,  which  he  headed  himself,  and  encountering  the 
insurgents  at  Boemplaats  on  the  main  road  to  Bloem  Fontein, 
where  they  had  taken  up  a  strong  position,  he  defeated  them,  and, 
pursuing  his  march,  reproclaimed  the  Queen's  sovereignty  over  the 
country  at  Bloem  Fontein  on  the  2nd  of  September,  1848,  under  a 
royal  salute." 

However,  having  beaten  the  emigrant  farmers  into 
submission  to  his  views,  Sir  Harry  Smith  proved  him- 
self to  be  (putting  aside  the  "  Rule  Britannia  "  passion, 
and  instructions  from  the  British  Government)  both 
a  magnanimous  conqueror  and  a  just  man,  for  one  of 
the  first  things  he  did  was  to  rectify  the  unfair  provi- 
sions of  the  objectionable  "-alienable"  and  "inalienable" 
land  treaty  made  between  Sir  Peregrine  Maitland  and 
the  Griquas.  It  is  as  well  to  quote  his  own  explana- 
tion of  this  transaction. f  In  a  despatch  to  Earl  Grey, 
bearing  date  January  20th,  1851,  he  states: — 

"  5. — After  mature  deliberation,  and  having  consulted  with  Adam 
Kok,  with  the  boers,  and  with  all  the  native  chiefs,  I  proclaimed 
Her  Majesty's  sovereignty,  in  order  to  establish  a  paramount  autho- 
rity in  this  debateable  territory.  In  this  measure,  the  great  principle 
by  which  I  was  guided  was  that  all  the  inhabitants,  white  and 
coloured,  should  continue  in  possession  of  the  farms  and  the  terri- 

*  How  could  people  be  said  to  be  in  "  open  rebellion "  against  a 
power  to  which  they  had  not  submitted,  and  which  had  seized  their 
country  by  force  ?  Mr.  Green,  being  a  British  official,  could  not,  we 
must  suppose,  term  the  boers  patriots. 

f  Vide  p.  82,  Blue  Book,  "  Orange  River  Correspondence,  1851 — 4." 


48  SIR    HARRY    SMITH'S    TREATY. 

tory  occupied  by  them  at  the  date  of  my  proclamation ;  but,  as 
serious  disputes  had  constantly  arisen  with  respect  to  boundaries,  I 
determined,  by  general  acclamation,  to  establish  denned  limits  and 

so  put  an  end  to  these  continual  and  pernicious  quarrels 

Captain  Adam  Kok's  territory  was  preserved  to  him  as  it  then 
stood,  as  regards  both  the  'alienable'  and  the  '  inalienable' por- 
tions. I  never  interfered  with  the  latter  in  the  most  remote  degree. 
The  Chief  himself  suggested  that,  after  the  expiration  of  the  forty 
years'  leases  in  his  '  inalienable '  territory  boors,  the  might  purchase 
from  his  people  a  future  right  upon  the  conditions  set  forth  in  my 
additional  treaty  transmitted  to  your  lordship.  This  was  Adam 
Kok's  own  proposal,  and  as  it  met  the  wishes  of  the  boers,  who 
were  most  desirous  to  possess  their  farms  in  perpetuity,  it  was 
agreed  to,  on  the  understanding  that  £300  a  year  should  be  paid  by 
Government  to  the  Griqua  Chief.  .... 

"6.  When  society  consists  of  the  heterogeneous  elements  of 
which  it  is  composed  beyond  the  Orange  River,  and  when  opposite 
interests  prefer  conflicting  claims,  that  course  is  the  best  which  con- 
tributes most  to  the  general  good.  The  great  principle  which 
guided  me  was,  as  I  have  already  stated,  not  to  disturb,  but  clearly  to 
define,  the  existing  occupation  ;  and  my  arrangement  has  consequently 
improved  the  condition  of  all." 

No  one  at  all  able  to  judge  in  the  matter  can 
dispute  Sir  Harry  Smith's  just  reasoning  and  true 
conclusions.  Although,  of  course,  none  of  the  Dutch 
emigrant  farmers  felt  satisfied  at  the  foreign  yoke 
again  placed  upon  them,  they  submitted  to  the  inevit- 
able with  good  grace,  and  for  several  years  devoted 
themselves  to  the  improvement  of  their  country, 
avoided  "  kicking  against  the  pricks  "  in  the  form  of  the 
Sovereignty  Government,  and  generally  brought  about 
a  high  state  of  prosperity  throughout  the  whole  terri- 
tory settled  and  occupied  by  themselves. 

During  the  Orange  River  Sovereignty  the  Griqua 
Waterboer  put  in  a  claim  to  some  land  (in  the  year 
1850)  south  of  the  Vaal  River;    the  Chief  of  Camp- 


ABANDONMENT    OF    SOVEREIGNTY.  49 

bell,  Cornelius  Kok,  made  a  similar  application  for  the 
same  land ;  the  British  Colonial  Government,  how- 
ever, ignored  both  claims.  The  event  will  be  further 
noticed  when  we  come  to  deal  with  Waterboer's  claim 
to  the  diamond-fields,  and  the  seizure  of  them 
(upon  the  pretence  that  it  was  for  him)  by  the  Colonial 
Government. 

The  Sovereignty  had  but  a  short  life  of  just  six 
years.  During  that  period  the  policy  of  interference 
with  the  natives,  the  intervention  in  their  continual 
internecine  quarrels  and  wars,  had  turned  out  badly. 
With  Moshesh,  especially,  the  paramount  chief  of  the 
numerous  and  formidable  nation  of  Basuto  Kafirs,  very 
indefinite  hostilities  had  been  waged ;  British  troops 
had  even  been  repulsed,  if  not  defeated ;  and  a  very 
dubious  sort  of  advantage  and  treaty  had  lately  been 
obtained.  These  things,  no  doubt,  affected  the  British 
Government  at  home.  The  policy  of  following  up  and 
forcibly  retaining  the  hoers  as  British  subjects  suddenly 
ceased,  the  Orange  River  Sovereignty  was  formally 
abandoned,  and  the  Government  of  the  country  made 
over  to  the  hocrs  as  a  free  and  independent  people ! 

This  act  was  just  as  arbitrary  and  selfish  as  the 
annexation  cle  haute  lutte  had  been  ;  the  will  of  Her 
Majesty's  Ministers  being  alone  studied  or  consulted ; 
that  of  the  people  to  be  abandoned — abandoned,  too, 
to  the  tender  mercies  of  the  Basutos,  whom  the  British 
hostilities  had  perhaps  provoked  against  the  whites, 
and  for  a  time  humbled,  but  certainly  not  conquered 
— never  being  taken  into  consideration  at  all !  Under 
these  circumstances  a  great  proportion  of  the  white 
settlers  protested  most  emphatically  against  the  aban- 
donment;   especially   many  English   merchants    and 

E 


50  THE   CONVENTION   OF    1854. 

others  wlio  had  made  the  country  their  home  upon  the 
strength  of  its  proclamation  as  a  British  sovereignty. 
But  nothing  availed.  A  Special  Commissioner  had 
arrived,  and  the  Orange  River  Territory  was  given  up 
just  as  hastily  as  it  had  been  at  first  so  greedily  seized 
upon  ;  the  following  very  distinct  and  absolute  treaty, 
or  rather  charter  of  independence  to  the  country,  and 
release  of  the  people  from  their  allegiance  to  the 
British  crown,  being  the  result : — 

AETICLES  OF  CONVENTION 

ENTERED    INTO    BETWEEN 

HEE  MAJESTY'S  SPECIAL  COMMISSIONEE 

AND   THE 

EEPEESENTATIYES 

OF   THE 

OEANGE    EIYEE    TEEEITOEY. 


AETICLES  of  Convention  entered  into  between  Sir  GEOEGE 
EUSSELL  CLEEK,  Knight  Commander  of  the  MostJHonourable 
Order  of  the  Bath,  Her  Majesty's  Special  Commissioner  for  settling 
and  adjusting  the  affairs  of  the  Orange  Eiver  Territory,  on  the  one 
part ;  and  the  undermentioned  Eepresentatives  delegated  by  the 
inhabitants  of  said  Territory : — 

For  the  District  of  Bloemfontein  : 

GEOEGE  FREDERICK  LINDE/ 

GEEHARDUS  JOHANNES  dtj  TOIT,  Field-coknet, 

JACOBUS  JOHANNES  VENTEE, 

DIRK  JOHANNES  KEAMFOET. 

For  the  District  of  Smithfeld: 

JOSIAS  PHILIP  HOFFMAN, 

HENDEIK  JOHANNES  WEBER,  Justice  of  the  Peace  and 
PETRUS  ARNOLDUS  HUMAN,  [Field  Commandant. 

JACOBUS  THEODORUS  SNYMAN,  late  Field  Commandant, 
PETRUS  Tan  dee  WALT,  sen.  (absent  on  leave). 


THE   CONVENTION    OF    1854.  51 

For  Sannahs  Poort  : 

GERT  PETRUS  VISSER,  Justice  of  the  Peace, 

JACOBUS  GROENENDAAL, 

JOHANNES  JACOBUS  RABIE,  Field-cornet, 

ESAIAS  RTNIER  SNYMAN, 

SARL  PETRUS  dtj  TOIT, 

HENDRIK  LODEWICUS  dtj  TOIT. 

For  the  District  of  Winhurg  ; 

FREDERICK  PETER  SCHNEHAGE, 

MATHYS  JOHANNES  WESSELS, 

CORNELIS  JOHANNES  FREDRIK  du  PLOOI, 

FREDRIK  PETRUS  SENEKAL,  Field-cornet, 

PETRUS  LAFRAS  MOOLMAN,  Field-cornet, 

JOHAN  ISAAK  JACOBUS  FICK,  Justice  of  the  Peace. 

For  the  District  of  Harrismith : 

PAUL  MICHIEL  BESTER,  Justice  of  the  Peace, 
WILLIAM  ADRIAN  van  AARDT,  Field-cornet, 
WILLEM  JURGENS  PRETORIUS, 
JOHANNES  JURGEN  BORNMAN, 
HENRIK  YENTER  (absent  on  leave), 
ADRIAN  HENDRIK  STANDER, 

on  the  other  part. 

"  Art.  I. — Her  Majesty's  Special  Commissioner,  in  entering  into 
a  Convention  for  finally  transferring  the  Government  of  the  Orange 
River  Territory  to  the  Representatives  delegated  by  the  inhabitants 
to  receive  it,  guarantees,  on  the  part  of  Her  Majestxfs  Government,  the 
future  independence  of  that  country  and  its  Government ;  and  that, 
after  the  necessary  preliminary  arrangements  for  making  over  the 
same  between  Her  Majesty's  Special  Commissioner  and  the  said 
Representatives  shall  have  been  completed,  the  inhabitants  of  the 
Territory  shall  then  be  free.  And  that  this  independence  shall, 
without  unnecessary  delay,  be  confirmed  and  ratified  by  an  instru- 
ment, promulgated  in  such  form  and  substance  as  Her  Majesty  may 
approve,*  finally  freeing  them  from  their  allegiance  to  the  British  Crown, 

*  It  is  important  to  notice  this  very  absolute  and  unreserved  release 
of  country  and  people  from  sovereignty  and  allegiance;  as  now,  in 
order  to  steal  a  part  of  the  Orange  Free  State  (the  diamond  fields),  the 
above  facts  are  actually  denied ! 

E   2 


52  THE    CONVENTION    OF    1854. 

and  declaring  them  to  all  intents  and  jmrposcs  a  free  and  independent 
people,  and  their  Government  to  be  treated  and  considered  thenceforth  as 
a  free  and  independent  Government. 

"Art.  II. — The  British  Government  has  no  alliance  whatever 
witn  any  Native  Chiefs  or  Tribes  to  the  northward  of  the  Orange 
Eiver  with  the  exception  of  the  Griqua  Chief,  Kaptyn  Adam  Kok  ; 
and  Her  Majesty's  Government  has  no  wish  or  intention  to  enter 
hereafter  into  any  Treaties  which  may  be  injurious  or  prejudicial  to 
the  interests  of  the  Orange  Eiver  Government. 

"Art.  III. — With  regard  to  the  Treaty  existing  between  the 
British  Government  and  the  Chief,  Kaptyn  Adam  Kok,  some  modi- 
fication of  it  is  indispensable.  Contrary  to  the  provisions  of  that 
Treaty,  the  Sale  of  Lands  in  the  Inalienable  Territory  has  been  of 
frequent  occurrence,  and  the  principal  object  of  the  Treaty  thus 
disregarded.  Her  Majesty's  Government  therefore-'4  intends  to  remove 
all  restrictions  preventing  Griquas  from  selling  their  lands ;  and  mea- 
sures are  in  progress  for  the  purpose  of  affording  every  facility  for 
such  transactions,  the  Chief  Adam  Iioh,  having  for  himself  concurred 
in  and  sanctioned  the  same.  And  with  regard  to  those  further  altera- 
tions arising  out  of  the  proposed  revision  or  relations  with  Kaptyn 
Adam  Kok,  in  consequence  of  the  aforesaid  Sales  of  Lands  having 
from  time  to  time  been  effected  in  the  Inalienable  Territory,  con- 
trary to  the  stipulations  of  the  Maitland  Treaty,  it  is  the  intention 
of  Her  Majesty's  Special  Commissioner  personally,  without  unne- 
cessary loss  of  time,  to  establish  the  affairs  in  Griqualand  on  a 
footing  suitable  to  the  just  expectations  of  all  parties. 

"  Art.  IV. — After  the  withdrawal  of  Her  Majesty's  Government 
from  the  Orange  Eiver  Territory,  the  New  Orange  Eiver  Govern- 
ment shall  not  permit  any  vexatious  proceedings  towards  those  of 
Her  Majesty's  present  subjects  remaining  within  the  Orange  Eiver 
Territory  who  may  heretofore  have  been  acting  under  the  authority 
of  Her  Majesty's  Government,  for,  or  on  account  of,  any  acts  law- 
fully done  by  them,  that  is,  under  the  law  as  it  existed  during  the 
occupation  of  the  Orange  Eiver  Territory  by  the  British  Govern- 


*  Upon  the  strength  of  this  arrangement,  shortly  afterwards  the 
whole  of  Adam  Kok's  territory  was  taken  over  and  purchased  outright 
"by  the  New  Orange  Eiver  Government  for  the  new  State,  "  the  Orange 
Tree  State." 


THE    CONVENTION    OF    1854.  53 

ment :  such  persons  shall  be  considered  to  be  guaranteed  in  the 
possession  of  their  estates  by  the  New  Orange  River  Government. 
Also,  with  regard  to  those  of  Her  Majesty's  present  subjects  who 
may  prefer  to  return  under  the  dominion  and  authority  of  Her 
Majesty  to  remaining  where  they  now  are,  as  subjects  of  the  Orange 
River  Government,  such  persons  shall  enjoy  full  right  and  facility 
for  the  disposal  and  transfer  of  their  properties,  should  they  desire 
to  leave  the  country  under  the  Orange  River  Government  at  any 
subsequent  period  within  three  years  from  the  date  of  this  Con- 
vention. 

"Art.  Y. — Her  Majesty's  Government  and  the  New  Orange  River 
Government  shall,  within  their  respective  territories  mutually  use 
every  exertion  for  the  suppression  of  crime,  and  keeping  the  peace, 
by  apprehending  and  delivering  up  all  criminals  who  may  have 
escaped  or  fled  from  justice  either  way  across  the  Orange  River ; 
and  the  Courts,  as  well  the  British  as  those  of  the  Orange  River 
Government,  shall  be  mutually  open  and  available  to  the  inhabit- 
ants of  both  territories  for  all  lawful  processes.  And  all  summonses 
for  witnesses,  directed  either  way  across  the  Orange  River,  shall 
be  countersigned  by  the  Magistrates  of  both  Governments  respec- 
tively to  compel  the  attendance  of  such  witnesses  when  and  where 
they  may  be  required ;  thus  affording  to  the  community  North  of  the 
Orange  River  every  assistance  from  the  British  Courts,  and  giving, 
on  the  other  hand  assurance  to  such  Colonial  Merchants  and  Traders 
as  have  naturally  entered  into  credit  transactions  in  the  Orange 
River  Territory  during  its  occupation  by  the  British  Government, 
and  to  whom,  in  many  cases,  debts  may  be  owing,  every  facility 
for  the  recovery  of  just  claims  in  the  Courts  of  the  Orange  River 
Government.  And  Her  Majesty's  Special  Commissioner  will  recom- 
mend the  adoption  of  the  like  reciprocal  privileges  by  the  Govern- 
ment of  Natal  in  its  relations  with  the  Orange  River  Government. 

"  Art.  VI. — Certificates  issued  by  the  proper  authorities — as  well 
in  the  Colonies  and  possessions  of  Her  Majesty  as  in  the  Orange 
River  Territory — shall  be  held  valid  and  sufficient  to  entitle  heirs 
of  lawful  marriages,  and  legatees,  to  receive  portions  and  legacies 
accruing  to  them  respectively,  either  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
British  or  Orange  River  Government. 

"  Art.  VII. — The  Orange  River  Government  shall,  as  hitherto 


54  THE   CONVENTION   OF    1854. 

permit  no  Slavery  or  Trade  in  Slaves  in  their  territory  North  of  the 
Orange  River. 

"  Art.  VIII. — The  Orange  Eiver  Government  shall  have  freedom 
to  purchase  their  supplies  of  ammunition  in  any  British  Colony  or 
possession  in  South  Africa,  subject  to  the  laws  provided  for  the  re- 
gulation of  the  sale  and  transit  of  ammunition  in  such  British  Colo- 
nies and  possessions  ;  and  Her  Majesty's  Special  Commissioner  will 
recommend  to^the  Colonial  Government  that  privileges  of  a  liberal 
character,  in  connection  with  Import  duties  generally,  be  granted 
to  the  Orange  Eiver  Government,  as  measures  in  regard  to  which 
it  is  entitled  to  be  treated  with  every  indulgence,  in  consideration 
of  its  peculiar  position  and  distance  from  the  sea-ports. 

"Art.  IX. — In  order  to  promote  mutual  facilities  and  liberty  to 
Traders  and  Travellers — as  well  in  the  British  possessions  as  in 
those  of  the  Orange  Eiver  Government ;  and,  it  being  the  earnest 
wish  of  Her  Majesty's  Government  that  a  friendly  intercourse  be- 
tween these  territories  should  at  all  times  subsist,  and  be  promoted 
by  every  possible  arrangement,  a  Consul  or  agent  of  the  British 
Government,  whose  especial  attention  shall  be  directed  to  the  pro- 
motion of  these  desirable  objects,  will  be  stationed  within  the 
Colony,  near  to  the  frontier,  to  whom  access  may  readily  at  all 
times  be  had  by  the  inhabitants  on  both  sides  of  the  Orange  Eiver, 
for  advice  and  information,  as  circumstances  may  require." 

This  done  and  signed  at  Bloemfontein,  on  the  Twenty-third  day 
of  February,  One  Thousand  Eight  Hundred  and  Fifty  Four. 

GEORGE  RUSSELL  CLERK,  K.C.B., 

Her  Majesty's  Special  Commissioner. 

JOSIAS  PHILIP  HOFFMAN,  President, 
GEORGE  FREDRIK  LINDE, 
G.  J.  du  TOIT,  Field-cornet, 
J.  J.  VENTER, 

D.  J.  KRAMFORT, 

H.  J.  WEBER,  Justice    of   the  Peace    and    Field    Com- 

P.  A.  HUMAN,  [mandant, 

J.  T.  SNYMAN,  late  Field  Commandant, 

G.  P.  VISSER,  Justice  of  the  Peace, 

J.  GROENENDAAL, 

J.  J.  RABIE,  Field-cornet, 

E.  R.  SNYMAN, 


RENUNCIATION    OF   H.M.    SOVEREIGNTY.  55 

S.  P.  du  TOIT, 

H.  L.  du  TOIT, 

F.  P.  SCHNEHAGE, 

M.  J.  WESSELS, 

C.  J.  F.  du  PLOOI, 

F.  P.  SENEKAL,  Field-cornet, 

P.  L.  MOOLMAJST,  Field-cornet, 

J.  I.  J.  FICK,  Justice  of  the  Peace, 

P.  M.  BESTER,  Justice  of  the  Peace, 

W.  A.  van  AARDT,  Field-cornet, 

W.  J.  PRETORIUS, 

J.  J.  BORNMAN, 

A.  H.  STANDER. 


COPY  OF  A  DESPATCH 

From  the  Duke  of  Newcastle  to  Sir  George  Clerk. 
(No.  7.) 

"Downing  Street,  February  13th,  1854. 
11  Sir, — With  reference  to  my  Despatch,  No.  4,  of  the  14th  No- 
vember last,  on  the  affairs  of  the  Orange  River  Sovereignty,  I  now 
transmit  to  you  an  order  of  Her  Majesty  in  Council  approving  of  a 
proclamation  to  make  known  the  abandonment  of  the  Queers 
sovereignty  over  the  said  territories,  and  ordering  that  the  said  pro- 
clamation shall  be  promulgated  by  you  on  or  before  the  first  day  of 
August  next  ensuing. 

"I  have  transmitted  to  Sir  George  Cathcart  the  letters  patent 
under  the  great  seal  revoking  Her  Majesty's  letters  patent  of  the 
22nd  March,  1851,  constituting  the  Orange  River  Territories  to  be  a 
distinct  Government,  and  I  have  furnished  him  also  with  a  copy  of 
tho  order  in  council  herewith  enclosed. 

"I  have,  &c, 
"  Sir  George  Clerk,  (Signed)  Newcastle. 

&c.  &c." 


Enclosure  in  No.  6. 
At  the  Court  at  Buckingham  Palace,  the  30th  day  of  January,  1854. 

Present  : 

The  Queen's  most  Excellent  Majesty  in  Council. 

"Whereas  Lieut.-General  Sir   Henry   George    Wakelyn    Smith, 

administrator  of  the  Government  of  the  Colony  of  the  Cape  of  Good 


56  RENUNCIATION   OF    II.M.    SOVEREIGNTY. 

Hope  in  South  Africa,  and  Her  Majesty's  High  Commissioner  for 
the  settling  and  adjustment  of  the  affairs  of  the  territories  in 
South  Africa,  adjacent  and  contiguous  to  the  eastern  and  north- 
eastern frontier  of  the  said  Colony,  did,  on  the  3rd  day  of  February, 
1848,  by  proclamation  under  his  hand  and  the  public  seal  of  the 
Colony  of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  proclaim  and  make  known  the 
sovereignty  of  Her  Majesty  over  the  territories  north  of  the  Great 
Orange  Eiver,  including  the  countries  of  Moshesh,  Moroko,  Molet- 
sani,  Sinkonayala,  Adam  Kok,  Gert  Taaybosch,  and  of  other  minor 
Chiefs,  so  far  north  as  to  the  Vaal  River  and  east  to  the  Drakens- 
berg  or  Quathlamba  mountains  :  And  whereas  the  said  Sir  Henry 
George  Wakelyn  Smith  did,  on  the  8th  day  of  March  in  the  same 
year,  by  another  proclamation  under  his  hand  and  the  public  seal  of 
the  said  Colony,  proclaim,  declare,  and  make  known  the  system  con- 
tained in  the  said  proclamation  for  the  Government  of  the  territory 
between  the  Orange  and  Vaal  Rivers,  described  as  being  then  under 
the  sovereignty  of  Her  Majesty : 

"  And  whereas  by  letters  patent  under  the  great  seal  of  the  United 
Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  bearing  date  the  22nd  of 
March,  1851,  Her  Majesty  did,  after  reciting  the  said  first-mentioned 
proclamation,  ordain  and  appoint  that  the  said  territories  therein 
described  should  thenceforth  become  and  be  constituted  a  distinct 
and  separate  government,  to  be  administered  in  her  name  and  on 
her  behalf  by  the  Governor  and  Commander-in-Chief  for  the  time 
being  in  and  over  her  settlement  of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  or 
otherwise  as  in  the  said  letters  patent  is  provided  :  And  did  by  the 
said  letters  patent  ordain  and  appoint  that  the  said  territories  should 
thenceforth  be  comprised  under  and  be  known  by  the  name  of 
the  Orange  River  Territory  ;  and  did  by  the  said  letters  patent,  and 
by  certain  instructions  under  the  sign  manual  bearing  even  date 
therewith,  make  further  provision  for  the  good  government  of  the 
said  territory :  And  whereas  Her  Majesty  did,  by  a  commission 
under  her  royal  sign  manual  and  signet,  bearing  date  at  Bucking- 
ham Palace  the  sixth  day  of  April,  1853,  in  the  sixteenth  year  of 
her  reign,  appoint  Sir  George  Russell  Clerk,  Knight  Commander 
of  the  most  Honourable  Order  of  the  Bath,  to  be  Her  Majesty's- 
Special  Commissioner  for  the  settling  and  adjustment  of  the  affairs 
of  the  said  territories  designated  as  the  Orange  River  Sovereignty  : 
"  And  whereas  it  has  seemed  expedient  to  Her  Majesty,  by  and 
with  the  advice  of  her  Privy  Council,  to  abandon  and  renounce  for 


RENUNCIATION   OF   H.M.    SOVEREIGNTY.  57 

herself,  her  heirs,  and  successors  all  dominion  and  sovereignty  of  the 
Crown  of  the  United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland  over  the 
territory  aforesaid  and  the  inhabitants  thereof  and  to  order  the  with- 
drawal of  all  her  officers  and  ministers,  military  and  civil,  from  the 
said  territory,  to  the  intent  that  the  said  territory  may  become  and  remain 
from  henceforward  independent  of  the  Crown  of  the  said  United  King- 
dom: 

"  And  whereas  Her  Majesty  has  accordingly,  by  her  letters  patent 
under  the  great  seal  of  the  said  United  Kingdom,  bearing  even  date 
herewith,  revoked  and  determined  the  hereinbefore  recited  letters 
patent  of  the  22nd  March,  1851  : 

"And  whereas  there  hath  this  day  been  laid  before  Her  Majesty 
in  Council  the  draft  of  a  proclamation  to  be  promulgated  in  the  said 
territory,  declaring  the  revocation  of  the  said  letters  patent  and  the 
abandonment  and  renunciation  of  her  dominion  over  the  said  terri- 
tory in  manner  aforesaid  (a  copy  of  which  is  hereunder  written) : 

*  Orange  River  Territory. 
1  Proclamation. 

'  Whereas  we  have  thought  fit  by  and  with  the  advice  of  our 
Privy  Council,  and  in  exercise  of  the  powers  and  authorities  to  us  in 
that  behalf  appertaining,  to  abandon  and  renounce  for  ourselves,  our 
heirs,  and  successors,  all  dominion  and  sovereignty  of  the  Crown  of  the 
United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland  over  the  territories 
designated  in  our  letters  patent  of  the  22nd  March,  1851,  by  the 
name  of  the  Orange  River  Territory  and  have  revoked  and  deter- 
mined the  said  letters  patent  accordingly : 

1  "We  do  for  that  end  publish  this  our  Royal  Proclamation,  and 
do  hereby  declare  and  make  known  the  abandonment  and  renunciation 
of  our  dominion  and  sovereignty  over  the  said  territory  and  the  inhabit- 
ants thereof. 

<  Given,  &c.' 

"  Her  Majesty  is  therefore  pleased  by  and  with  the  advice  of  her 
Privy  Council,  to  approve  the  said  Proclamation,  and  to  order,  and 
in  pursuance  and  exercise  of  the  powers  and  authorities  to  her  in 
that  behalf  appertaining,  it  is  hereby  ordered  that  the  said  Procla- 
mation shall  be  promulgated  by  the  said  Sir  George  Russell  Clerk, 
on  or  before  the  first  day  of  August  next  ensuing  ;    and  that  upon 


58  RENUNCIATION  OF  H.M.  SOVEREIGNTY. 

and  from  and  after  such  promulgation  thereof  all  dominion  and  sove- 
reignty of  Her  Majesty  over  the  said  territory  and  the  inhabitants 
thereof  shall  absolutely  cease  and  determine,  and  her  officers  and  minis- 
ters, military  and  civil,  shall  with  all  the  convenient  speed  be  with- 
drawn from  the  said  territory. 

"  And  the  most  noble  the  Duke  of  Newcastle,  one  of  Her 
Majesty's  principal  Secretaries  of  State  is  to  give  the  necessary 
directions  herein  accordingly. 

"C.    C.    GHEVILLE." 


TWENTY   YEARS    PEACE. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

Anti-boer  Policy  of  the  English  and  Colonial 
Governments.  Progress  of  Political  Events  in 
the  Free  State.  Waterboer's  First  and  Only 
Territory  South  of  the  Vaal. 

British  Interference  Commences  again  (when  diamonds  are 
discovered),  after  a  lapse  of  Twenty  Years. — Persecution 

OF    THE  BOERS,  OR  EMIGRANT  FARMERS. OPINIONS  OF  AtTORNEY- 

General  Porter,  Earl  Grey,  and  Sir  Geo.  Cathcart. — The 
Motive  for  Interference. — Waterboer  and  Cornelius  Kok. 
— D'Urban  Treaty  of  1834. — Origin  of  Line  from  Bamah  to 
David's  Graf. — Evidence  of  Hendrik  Hendrikse. — Major 
Warden's  Eeport. — Waterboer's  First  Claim  South  of  the 
Vaal. — Evidence  per  contra. — Death  of  Andries  Waterboer. 
— Treaty  not  Eenewed  with  his  successor,  Nicholas  Water- 
boer.— Griqua  Schemes  result  in  the  First  [Recognition  of 
Waterboer  South  of  Vaal. — The  "Vetberg  Line:" — 
Recognized  by  Sir  George  Grey. 

Henceforth,  from  the  date  of  the  Convention,  the 
country  lying  between  the  Vaal  and  Orange  Rivers, 
occupied  by  white  settlers,  has  been  in  fact  and  in  law 
a  free  and  independent  nation,  known  to  and  recog- 
nized formally  by  all  the  great  powers  of  the  world 
as  the  Orange  Free  State. 

For  nearly  a  score  of  years  even  the  Cape  Colony 
Government  never  infringed  or  interfered  with  the 
rights  and  privileges,  the  entire  independence,  terri- 
torial and  political,  of  the  new  State ;  yet  now, 
forsooth,  since  diamonds  have  been  discovered  therein,  the 


60  UNJUST   INTERVENTION. 

aforesaid  Government  suddenly  backs  up  Waterboer, 
and  seizes,  in  the  old  fashion,  vi  et  armis,  upon  a 
portion  of  the  Free  State  territory,  which  has  been  in 
the  undisturbed  and  unquestioned  possession  of  its 
people  during  all  those  years !  And  this  possession, 
be  it  clearly  remembered,  was  sanctioned,  maintained, 
and  specially  legalized,  in  nearly  every  instance,  by 
the  British  Government  itself,  during  the  time  of  the 
Sovereignty !  Special  legal  instruments,  as  Sir  H. 
Smith's  treaties,  were  composed  for  the  purpose ;  and 
when  the  government  of  the  country  was  made  over 
to  the  newly-created  Free  State,  all  those  laws, 
privileges,  territorial  rights,  and  titles  to  land  tenure 
were  especially  transferred  to  it ;  whilst  it  was,  more- 
over, bound  to  maintain  them  inviolate. 

This  ceaseless  persecution,  this  plunder  of  and 
persevering  tyranny  over  a  weak,  unoffending,  and 
comparatively  helpless  people,  constitutes  one  of  the 
meanest,  most  despicable,  and  hypocritical  of  England's 
foreign  policies. 

Before  proceeding  to  investigate  the  proceedings  of 
the  Griquas  from  the  period  I  last  left  them  at,  and 
analyzing  and  criticising  the  claim  put  forth  to  the 
diamond-fields  by  Waterboer,  and  their  seizure  by  an 
act  of  hostile  invasion  and  robbery  of  the  Free  State, 
ostensibly  in  his  cause,  by  the  Colonial  Government  of 
Cape  Town,  I  cannot  refrain  from  a  digression, 
perhaps,  in  explanation  and  condemnation  of  the  cruel, 
unfriendly,  and  unrighteous  policy  in  question. 

What  can  be  the  cause,  the  real  motive  power,  for 
this  seemingly  inveterate  persecution  of  the  unsup- 
ported South  African  colonists  of  Dutch  descent  by 
the    British     colonists,    supported    (whenever   aid   is 


BRITISH    TOLICY.  Gl 

required)  by  the  full  power  of  Her  Majesty's  Govern- 
ment ? 

Before  answering  the  question,  in  case  any  one  may 
deny  the  hostile  persecution,  I  will  just  quote  a  few 
extracts  from  Attorney- General  Porter's  memorandum 
already  used  in  this  work,  and,  as  he  was  always  one 
of  the  most  distinguished  members  of  the  Government 
accused,  his  statements  of  its  acts  will  no  doubt  be 
believed. 

*  "  13.  Is,  then,  the  Orange  River  Sovereignty  a  colony  by  occu- 
pancy ? It  seems  absurd  to  say  that  those  lands  have  been 

acquired  by  the  occupancy   of  the  very  emigrants  (the  boers  whom 

we  laboured  to  exclude  from  them As  real  powers  the  native 

chiefs  exist  no  longer.     Everything  that  could  be  tried  was  tried  by  the 
British  Government  to  preserve  their  theoretical  supremacy  " 

From  Mr.  Porter's  second  memorandum  we  take 
the  following : — 

f  "  7.  It  is  indisputable,  I  conceive,  that  we  crossed  the  Orange 
Eiver,  not  to  bestow  upon  the  emigrant  boers  the  power  of  doing 
what  they  pleased,  but  to  deprive  the  majority  of  the  emigrant 
boers  of  the  power.  .  .  These  emigrants  did  not  want  us.  They 
prayed  for  nothing  but  to  be  let  alone 

"9.  His  Excellency  the  Governor  will  not  understand  me  as 
presuming  to  condemn  the  policy  of  recognizing  the  independence 
of  the  boers  beyond  the  Yaal  .  .  That  it  reverses  the  whole  pre- 
vious policy  of  Great  Britain  is  not  less  clear.  That  their  allegiance 
was  inalienable,  and  their  independence  a  dream,  was  the  doctrine 
of  the  British  Government  down  to  the  other  day.  It  was  the  doctrine 
asserted  by  force  of  arms  at  Natal,  1842.  It  was  the  doctrine  asserted  by 
force  of  arms  at  Swart  Koppjes  in  1845.  It  ivas  the  doctrine  asserted  at 
Boem  Plaats  in  1848.     It  was  the  doctrine  of  a  yet  later  date.     'It 


*  Vide  p.  10,  Blue  Book,  "  Orange  River  Correspondence,  1851 — 4." 
t  Vide  p.  76.  Blue  Book  (No.  2),  "  Orange  River  Correspondence, 
1851-4." 


62  OFFICIAL   CONRADICTION 

is  clear,'  says  Earl  Grey,  in  his  despatch,  No.  546,*  of  the  29th 
November,  1850,  'that  the  boers  have  not  the  slightest  claim  to  the 
territory  which  they  occupy  beyond  the  Yaal  River,  and  I  trust 
that  no  time  will  be  lost  in  carrying  into  effect  the  measures  which 
I  have  recommended  for  encouraging  and  assisting  the  native  tribes 
whom  they  are  oppressing,  to  assert  their  right,  and  to  defend 
themselves.'  In  truth  we  not  only  refused  to  acknowledge  the  boers 
to  be  independent  of  ourselves,  but  we  interfered  to  compel  the  boers 
to  acknowledge  their  dependence  upon  the  native  chiefs  in  whose  lands  tJiey 
were  settled.1 " 

Although  Earl  Grey  saw  so  clearly  that  the  boers 
had  not  the  slightest  claim  to  their  territory,  it  is 
singular  that  exactly  thirteen  months  later,  on  the 
17th  January,  1852,  the  British  Government  and  the 
Duke  of  Newcastle  saw  just  as  clearly  exactly  the 
reverse,  and  made  a  special  treaty  and  convention  with 
those  very  boers,  by  which  f Article  \J  was  guaranteed, 
*  "  in  the  fullest  manner,  on  the  part  of  the  British 
Government,  to  the  emigrant  farmers  beyond  the  Vaal 
Eiver,  the  right  to  manage  their  own  affairs,  and  to 
govern  themselves  without  any  interference  on  the 
part  of  Her  Majesty's  Government  on  the  territory 
beyond  to  the  North  of  the  Vaal  River,  with  the  further 
assurance  that  the  warmest  wish  of  the  British  Govern- 
ment is  to  promote  peace,  free-trade,  and  friendly 
intercourse  with  the  emigrant  farmers,"  &c.  .  . 

Having  hunted,  harassed,  and  tyranized  over  the 
boers  as  long  as  ever  possible  ;  having  relentlessly 
followed  them  up  step  by  step  with  armed  force  to 
terrorize  over  them  and  compel  their  submission  to 
our  foreign  yoke  ;  and  having,  when  they  fled  too  far 

*  Vide  p.  97,  Blue  Book,  "  Orange  River  Correspondence,  1851 — 4." 
f  Vide  p.  86,  Blue  Book  (No.  3),  "  Orange  River  Correspondence, 
1851-4." 


A    U  NOBLE   POLICY."  63 

away  for  us  to  follow  in  the  wilderness,  vainly  striven 
to  combine  and  aid  the  Kafirs  against  them ;  imme- 
diately the  last  and  most  atrocious  hostile  policy  of  all 
has  failed,  the  above  fulsome  protestations  of  love  and 
undying  friendship,  complete  recognition  of  rights, 
&c,  always  before  so  violently  resisted,  become 
en  regie  ! 

"Well,  this  may  be  very  fine  diplomacy ;  but  I,  for 
my  part,  call  it  rank  hypocrisy.  Statesmen  may 
term  it  sound  policy,  but  conscientious,  simpler  men 
will  deem  it  merely  degrading  to  a  great  and  powerful 
nation. 

Attorney-General  Porterf  in  concluding  that  para- 
graph of  his  report  upon  the  recognition  of  boer 
independence  last  quoted  from,  states:  "  But  I,  for  my 
own  part,  frankly  confess  that  it  is  not  without  a 
feeling  of  regret  that  I  witness  the  reversal  of  what 
was  so  long  a  cherished  and,  in  its  'principle ,  a  most 
noble  policy"  .  .  . 

Hardly,  Mr.  Porter !  The  one  sine  qua  non  to  make 
this  principle  so  noble  would  be  that  the  boers  were 
always  wrong,  and  the  natives  always  right.  But 
then,  if  the  natives  are  always  right,  how  awfully 
wrong  must  England  be  for  her  numerous  Kafir  wars  ! 

No  one  would  more  readily  than  myself  endorse  as 
noble — too  noble,  I  fear,  for  any  nation — a  policy 
which  invariably  maintained  the  right  against  the 
wrong.  The  principle  would  simply  be  perfection ; 
the  practice  assuredly  sadly  imperfect.  At  all  events, 
I  quite  fail  to  perceive  why  the  principle  of  always 
aiding  the  "  most  merciless  and  irreclaimable  savages  "* 

*  Vide  Despatch  of  Sir  Harry  Smith  to  Earl  Grey,  p.  83,  Blue  Book, 
1  Orange  River  Correspondence,  1851 — 4." 


G4  SIR  g.  cathcart's  opinion. 

of  Africa  against  a  white  and  Christian  people  should 
he  noble. 

Whilst  on  this  subject  I  cannot  refrain  from  quoting 
Governor  Sir  Geo.  Cathcart's  opinion  thereon  ;  which, 
although,  perhaps,  not  so  very  noble  as  an  abstract 
principle,  is  indeed  a  most  sound  and  admirable  policy 
to  jDractise  : — 

*  "With  regard  to  Mr.  Porter's  expression  of  opinion  as  to  the 
doctrine  of  interference  in  native  quarrels,  or  even  between  remote 
settlers  and  their  neighbours,  founded  on  motives  of  humanity, 
experience  has  convinced  me  that  in  most  cases  the  evil  is  aggra- 
vated ultimately  by  interference ;  for  that,  although  the  white 
settler  has  a  tendency  to  encroach,  and  it  appears  to  be  a  law  of 
nature  that  he  should  prevail,  his  individual  interest  is  more  to  live  in 
peace  with  his  neighbour  than  to  quarrel  with  him;  his  encroachments 
are  gradual,  for  he  covets  and  grasps  at  no  more  than  he  wants, 
and,  possibly,  though  I  fear  but  rarely,  his  object  is  accomplished 
by  fair  means.  Whereas,  on  the  other  hand,  when  military  inter- 
ference is  had  recourse  to,  it  is  apt  to  commence  on  slight  grounds, 
and  terminate,  after  much  bloodshed,  in  the  extirpation  of  the 
whole  hostile  race,  and  in  the  acquirement  of  vast  territories  which 
cannot  be  adequately  occupied  for  ages  to  come,  and  in  the  mean- 
time only  to  be  retained  as  waste  lands  under  military  control." 

We  will  now  consider  certain  facts  in  reply  to  the 
query  as  to  why  England  has  so  long,  and  especially 
now,  at  the  present  time,  pursued  a  hostile  and  aggres- 
sive policy  against  the  bocrs. 

What  has  always  been  urged  by  Her  Majesty's  re- 
presentatives as  the  excuse  to  justify  annexation  and 
slaughter  as  applied  against  the  Dutch  settlers,  is  the 
accusation  that  the  latter  have  encroached,  were  sus- 


*  Vide  Despatch  from  Sir  G.  Cathcart  to  the  Secretary  of  State  for 
the  Colonies,  November  14,  1852,  p.  73,  Blue  Book  (No.  2),  "  Orange 
River  Correspondence,  1851 — 4." 


ANTI-DUTCH    POLICY,  65 

pected  of  encroaching,  or  at  some  previous  time  had 
encroached  upon  native  territories. 

Whatever  they  might,  could,  would,  or  should  have 
done  in  this  particular,  I  cannot  find  any  very  glaring 
or  definite  accusation  as  to  what  they  have  done ; 
moreover,  we  Englishmen  are  the  very  last  people  in 
the  universe  from  whom  any  such  charge  should 
proceed. 

What !  are  the  Free  Staters  to  be  bullied,  oppressed, 
even  butchered  by  Britishers  upon  the  pretence  that 
they  plunder  and  maltreat  "  niggers!"  How  godly 
and  upright,  how  inordinately  just  and  righteous, 
these  soi-disant  protectors  of  the  dear  blacks  would 
appear  to  have  become — since  diamonds  have  been 
found  in  South  Africa!  Why,  the  ever  memorable 
act  of  Nelson,  when  he  placed  the  telescope  to  his 
sightless  eye,  and  could  not  see  that  which  he  would 
not,  is  infinitely  surpassed  in  its  hypocrisy  and  deceit 
(not  its  heroic  determination)  by  these  modern  dis- 
ciples of  the  beings  "  who  have  eyes  but  see  not."  They 
have  closed  both  their  eyes  ;  utterly  blinded  them- 
selves. Not  only  have  they  obscured  their  vision 
physical,  but  also  that  mental  have  they  covered 
up  and  hidden  with  a  black,  impenetrable  veil. 
And  to  this  utter  darkness  have  they  applied  the 
telescope  with  which  to  spy  and  pick  out  the  mote 
in  their  neighbour's  eyes,  utterly, — with  an  astound- 
ing assurance, — oblivious  to  the  huge  beam  in  their 
own. 

What !  dare  Englishmen — or  one,  only  one,  of 
just  mind,  ordinary  knowledge  and  intelligence — be 
found  to  support  the  unfriendly,  unjustifiable  acts  now 
perpetrated  and  perpetrating  against  the  Orange  Free 


66  INTERVENTION   A   LA   ANGLAIS  : 

State  upon  the  plea  that  the  latter  has  encroached 
upon  the  territory  of  natives,  and,  therefore,  that  it 
has  become  the  duty  of  England  to  step  in  and  pro- 
tect them  ? 

Need  the  utter  truthlessness,  the  gross  hypocrisy,  of 
such  a  pretence  be  illustrated  ?  Is  it  not  a  truism — 
absurd,  sickening  to  repeat  by  reason  of  its  well 
known,  glaring,  every-day  presence  and  admission — 
that,  turn  in  whatsoever  direction  you  may,  north, 
south,  east,  or  west — go  whithersoever  you  please 
over  that  empire  on  which  thoughtless  patriots  have 
vain-gloriously  boasted  that  the  sun  never  sets — you 
find  the  results  of  the  most  gigantic  system  of  wrong 
and  spoliation,  of  encroachment  upon  native  rights 
and  lands,  this  round  and,  be  it  observed,  curious 
sphere  has  ever  experienced?  Europe,  Asia,  Africa, 
America,  Polynesia,  all  bear  the  dents  and  holes  of 
British  bombs  and  bayonets !  Why,  we  are  getting 
to  the  story  of  Alexander  the  Great  and  the  poor 
bandit  again  !  For  one  inch  the  Free  State  farmers 
have  ever  encroached,  England  has  seized  square 
miles  of  country  which  did  not  belong  to  her. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  go  into  the  argument 
against  the  blessings  and  benefits  of  "  Christianity 
and  civilization,"  as  its  disciples  term  it,  as  illustrated 
by  the  acts  of  Great  Britain;  though  I  will  assert 
that  my  own  opinion  has  ever  been  that  England  had 
no  right  to  "  meddle  and  muddle,"  to  rob  and  plunder, 
all  over  the  world  upon  the  pretext,  forsooth,  that 
she  could  rule  and  govern  the  peoples  (rich  in  spoil 
and  land,  but  weak  in  military  strength  better  than 
they  could  themselves.  Neither  can  I  perceive  her 
jusitfication  for  slaughtering  the  ignorant  savages — as, 


ITS   MOTIVE.  67 

par  exemple,  the  Maories,  or  the  semi-civilized  Asiatics 
the  East  Indians, — when  they  chose  to  think  otherwise, 
and  strove  to  resist  foreign  rapacity  and  aggression. 
Moreover,  it  does  not  quite  clearly  appear  how  those 
who  perished  before  our  superior  weapons  were  to 
experience  the  "  blessings,"  &c,  of  Christ  and  civili- 
zation. But  it  is  idle  to  digress  upon  a  subject  that 
could  well  occupy  the  pens  of  several  hundred  philo- 
sophers and  moralists.  To  destroy  the  encroachment 
pretence  it  is  quite  sufficient  merely  to  mention  Heli- 
goland, Gibraltar,  Malta,  the  Channel  Islands,  North 
America,  Hong  Kong,  and  the  Treaty  Ports  in  China, 
ditto  in  Japan,  British  India,  the  African  Colonies, 
Polynesia  and  New  Zealand  ;  in  which  latter  Island  the 
natives  having  become  averse  to  part  with  more  of 
their  lands,  it  was  publicly  advocated  (and  I  for  years 
possessed  proofs  thereof)  that,  as  the  Colonists  required 
more  ground,  and  the  Maories  would  not  sell,  the 
plan  was  to  drive  them  into  rebellion,  and  then  obtain 
the  coveted  territories  by  confiscation  ! 

And  now,  after  proving  that  England  could  have  no 
moral  right  or  reason  to  interfere  against  the  Free 
State  alleged  encroachment  upon  natives,  I  beg  to 
point  out  the  alternative — that  she  might]  have  a 
material,  selfish,  jealous  motive.  There  exists  the 
sentiment  represented  by  the  pleasing  little  parable  of 
the  dog  in  the  manger  ;  and  people  always  hate  those 
whom  they  wrong,  especially  when  they  persecute 
them  without  cause  or  provocation.  There  exist 
amongst  the  nations  of  men,  as  amongst  the  individual 
members  of  the  human  race,  the  passions  of  envy, 
jealousy,  and  hatred. 

To  accuse  the  Free  State  of  aggression,  indeed,  to 

f  2 


68  BRITISH    AGGRESSION    EXPOSED. 

justify  our  aggressions  upon  it  !     As  a  great  statesman 
lately  wrote : — 

"When  have  plausible  pretexts  and  honourable  names  been 
wanting  to  warrant  our  seizing  on  our  neighbour's  property  and 
cutting  his  throat  in  the  event  of  his  resisting  ?  Formerly  religion 
was  the  most  convenient  word — now-a-days  the  term  '  nationality  ' 
has  come  into  fashion,  being  pompous,  obscure,  and  empty,  which 
is  the  very  ideal  of  a  war  cry.  Then  diplomacy  steps  in,  in  its 
turn,  to  cover  the  whole  with  a  tissue  of  fine  sounding  words,  and 
draw  up  formal  deeds  for  the  winner's  benefit.  It  is  nothing,  in 
fact,  to  break  into  a  house ;  it  is  requisite  also  to  insist  on  title- 
deeds  being  given  up,  that  shall  be  valid — so  long  as  the  new- 
comer remains  strongest." 

How  well  this  applies  to  England's  seizure  of  the 
diamond  fields ! 

When  the  Free  State  is  accused  of  aggressing,  what, 
I  should  like  to  know,  was  the  British  seizure  of  the 
Cape  ?  the  persistent  following  up  of  the  Dutch 
colonists  and  their  descendants  ?  the  forcible  taking 
possession  of  the  new  lands  they  have  reclaimed  from 
the  wilderness  ever  since  ? 

The  pretence  has  been  always  made  that  these  emi- 
grant farmers  were  British  subjects,  and  so  could  not 
establish  an  independent  government  for  themselves  ; 
that  they  bore  the  burden  of  a  heavy  and  interminable 
allegiance  to  a  foreign  power  upon  their  backs  wher- 
ever they  might  go.  Yes,  they  were  British  subjects, 
by  conquest,  just  so  long  as  bayonets  and  villainous 
saltpetre  made  them  so,  and  they  chose  to  remain 
within  the  limits  of  their  conquerors'  boundaries.  But 
I  have  yet  to  learn  that  the  free-born  subjects  of  one 
state  can  be  released  from  their  allegiance  and 
become  for  ever  the  subjects  of  another  state  simply 
upon  its" seizing  by  force  of  arms  the  territory  where 


BRITISH   ARROGANCE.  69 

they  reside ;  or  that,  when  they  fly  from  their  old 
residences  and  the  foreign  conquerors  they  still  remain 
the  subjects,  slaves,  or  vassals  of  the  latter ! 

Singularly  enough,  long  after  writing  the  above 
opinion,  I  accidently  came  across  a  statement  of 
Attorney-General  Porter's  in  strict  accordance:* 

"I  should  have  contended  that  conquest  naturalizes  all  who  elect 
to  remain  under  the  Government  of  the  conquerors  .  .  .  and  that  in 
regard  to  the  Cape,  if  a  man  who  did  not  remove  himself  within  a 
reasonable  time  after  the  capture,  or,  at  all  events,  after  the  cession, 
owed  no  allegiance  to  England,  he  owed  no  allegiance  at  all." 

But  away  with  the  false,  paltry,  hypocritical  pre- 
tences ever  advanced  to  justify  persecution  of  the 
boers  !  The  truth  seems  to  be  that  Great  Britain  alone 
(by  some  occult  divine  right)  can  seize,  plunder,  annex, 
and  found  colonies  wherever  she  pleases  on  other 
people's  lands.  And  what !  Some  of  the  people  she 
dispossesses  of  their  property  and  nationality  refuse  to 
submit  to  it  by  taking  up  waste  land  and  fleeing  to 
found  a  new  home  in  the  wilderness !  After  them ! 
Seize  upon  them !  Take  all  that  they  have  newly 
acquired  !  Slay  them  if  they  do  not  like  it  and  resist ! 
They  are  rebels! 

Such  seems  to  be  the  only  explanation  of  the  hostile 
policy  of  England  towards  the  boers,  and  to  which  she 
has,  after  a  long  interval,  now  returned  by  her  aggres- 
sion upon  the  Orange  Free  State. 

We  must  now  revert  to  the  Griquas  north  of  the 
Vaal,  whom  we  left,  in  Chapter  II.,  very  comfortably 
divided  into  two  bodies,  under  the  respective  chiefs, 
Andries  Waterboer  and  Cornelius  Kok  ;   the  boundary 

*  Vide  p.  12,  Blue  Book,  "  Orange  River  Correspondence,  1851— 4." 


^  GRIQUA   EVENTS. 

line  between  them  being  that  made  by  the  paramount 
chief,  Dam  Kok,  of  Philippolis,  in  about  the  year  1820. 

We  have  also  seen  that  up  to  that  period  neither  of 
the  subordinate  chiefs  had  any  ground,  or  claim  to 
ground,  south  of  the  Vaal  River. 

But  as  the  Philippolis  Griquas  seem  to  have  settled 
close  about  that  town,  and  to  have  quite  abandoned 
the  territory  in  the  vicinity  of  the  Vaal,  so,  gradually, 
though  to  a  very  trifling  extent,  their  northern  brethren 
seem  to  have  used,  as  occasional  pasturage,  the  land 
on  the  south  bank,  near  to  the  confluence  with  the 
Orange  River. 

*  In  the  year  1834,  Waterboer,  by  the  aid  of  his 
missionary,  obtained  a  treaty  with  the  Governor  of 
the  Cape,  Sir  Benjamin  D' Urban ;  the  only  important 
point  in  this  treaty  being,  that  it  mentions  the  first 
claim  ever  made  by  the  northern  Griquas  to  any  land 
south  of  the  Vaal,  as  the  only  boundary  line  therein 
stated,  viz.,  that  between  Waterboer  and  the  Cape 
Colony — "  from  Keis  to  Ramah  " — both  on  the  Orange 
River.  As  Hendrik  Hendrikse  pointed  out,  the  evident 
object  of  this  treaty  was  to  preserve  the  integrity  of 
the  northern  boundary  of  the  colony. 

Some  years  subsequent  to  this  both  Waterboer  and 
Cornelius  Kok  began  to  squabble  about  the  patch  of 
land  between  the  confluence  of  the  Vaal  and  Orange 
rivers,  Cornelius  Kok  in  the  meanwhile  selling  farms 
thereon  to  various  boers,  or  emigrant  farmers.  Accord- 
ing to  the  evidence-]*  of  Hendrik  Hendrikse,  at  the 
time  Government  Secretary  to  the  Chief  of  Philippolis, 

*  Vide  "  Book  of  Treaties,"  Cape  Colony,  p.  13,  1853—54. 
f  Vide  Blue  Book,  O.F.S.,  p.  12,  Annexures,  "  Minutes  of  Meeting  at 
Nooitgedacht." 


the  line,  david's  graf  to  ramah.  71 

Adam  Kok,  the  latter  wished  to  punish  him  for  these 
sales : — 

1 '  He  (Adam  Kok)  wished  to  punish  Cornelius  for  the  illegal 
sale  of  lands.  But  this  came  afterwards,  before  the  Griqua  Govern- 
ment, for  the  first  places  he  sold  in  1840  or  1841.  The  councillors 
and  friends  of  Cornelius  Kok  interceded  for  him,  and  Captain  Adam 
Kok  then  made  a  line  exclusive  of  the  lands  ivhich  had  been  sold,  viz., 
from  David's  Graf  to  Kamah."* 

This  is  the  first  mention  ever  made  of  a  line  between 
the  northern  and  Philippolis  Griquas  south  of  the  Vaal, 
and  as  such  is  highly  important.  Ramah  had  been 
previously  mentioned  in  Sir  B.  D'  Urban' s  treaty  and 
in  some  documents  which  have  lately  been  produced 
by  Waterboer;  but  Ramah  is  a  place,  a  small  kraal 
or  village,  not  a  line ;  and  the  above  is  the  first  au- 
thentic statement  of  one  made  from  there  in  any 
direction  whatever  since  the  treaty  with  Sir  B. 
D'Urban  (referring  to  only  one  line  "from  Keis  to 
Ramah,"  along  the  Orange  River),  which  lapsed  on 
the  death  of  Andries  Waterboer,  in  1852,  when  the 
then  Governor  of  the  Cape  refused  to  renew  it. 

Moreover,  it  is  still  more  important  to  remember 

that  the  above  line  was  made  between  Adam  Kok,  of 

Philippolis,  and  Cornelius  Kok,  of  Campbell,  and  thai 

Waterboer  of  Griqua  Town   had  nothing  whatever  to  do 

with  it  I 

It  is  even  evident  from  the  boundary  defined  by 
Sir  P.  Maitland  in  1 845  (and  which  mentions  the  line 
from  David's  Graf  to  Ramah  as  one  boundary  of  Adam 
Kok's  "  inalienable  "  territory)  that  no  other  Grriquas 
at  all  were  recognized  as  being  in  bond  fide  occupation 
or  ownership  of  land  south  of  the  Vaal. 

*  Vide  Diagram  B,  chapter  3. 


72  CORNELIUS  KOK'S  LANDS. 

Hendrik  Hendrikse  (whose  evidence  lias  never  been 
disputed)  proves  how  vague  and  indefinite  was  the 
claim  of  Cornelius  Kok  at  that  time.     He  continues : 

"Adam  Kok  declared  this  (if  I  am  not  mistaken,  before  Major 
Warden,  in  1847),  '  That  as  Cornelius  Kok  could  not  return  what 
he  had  received  for  the  farms  which  he  had  sold,  he  (Cornelius 
Kok)  could  keep  the  ground  (?)  to  the  north  of  the  line  of  David's 
Graf  ;  upon  which  the  British  Government''1  (the  residency  previous 
to  the  sovereignty  being  then  established)  "  issued  land  certificates 
for  all  farms  sold  to  white  people." 

And  this  very  land,  sold  then  by  Cornelius  Kok — the 
sale  being  sanctioned  and  legalized  by  the  issue  of 
title  deeds  to  the  farmers  by  the  British  Government — ■ 
is  that  now  claimed  by  Waterboer,  and  seized  for  him 
(from  the  people  to  whom  it  was  formerly  sold)  by  the 
British  Government — that  formerly  made  the  sale 
binding  !  !  ! 

Sir  Harry  Smith,  as  we  have  seen,  again  confirmed 
all  the  rights  of  the  Sovereignty  boers ;  he,  also,  never 
recognized  any  Griqua  chief  south  of  the  Vaal  except 
Adam  Kok. 

In  the  meanwhile,  however,  the  Griquas  of  Water- 
boer from  Griqua  Town  undoubtedly  began  to  make 
occasional  pasturage  excursions,  and  set  up  a  sort  of 
claim,  to  the  land  immediately  in  the  angle  formed  by 
the  junction  of  the  Vaal  and  Orange  rivers,  and  to  the 
west  of  Cornelius  Kok's  equally  vague  and  indefinite 
occupation. 

In  the  year  1850,  Major  Warden,  the  British  Resi- 
dent, was  engaged  with  a  commission  in  surveying, 
for  the  Sovereignty  Government,  the  very  farms  sold 
by  Cornelius  Kok,  and  also  the  boundaries  of  Adam 
Kok's  "  inalienable  "  territory.     From  his  report  to 


MAJOR   WARDEN^   REPORT.  73 

Sir  Harry  Smith*  we  obtain  the  following  informa- 
tion : — 

"On  the  24th  ultimo  (July,  1850)  I  met  Captain  Cornelius 
Kok  and  his  raad.  The  captain  requests  his  Excellency  to  allot  to 
him  a  large  tract  of  country  below  David's  Graf  and  between  the 
Orange  River."     (This  is  the  very  ground  above  mentioned.) 

"  Although  he  has  long  laid  claim  to  this  part  of  the  country,  his 
people,  as  far  as  I  can  learn,  never  occupied  the  same,  except  in 
very  dry  seasons,  in  search  of  pasturage  ....  There  is  also  another 
claimant  in  the  person  of  the  Griqua  Waterboer,  who  states  that 
Sir  P.  Maitland  allotted  to  him ,  the  whole  country  between  the 
Orange  and  Modder  rivers,  from  Adam  Kok's  boundary  to  the 
banks  of  the  Yaal  Eiver  (sic)  I  Sir  P.  Maitland  did  say  that  the 
country  of  Waterboer  should  join  that  of  Adam  Kok ;  but  the  then 
Governor  was  not  aware  at  the  time  that  Waterboer' s  Griquas  have 
as  much  country  beyond  the  Yaal  River  as  they  could  possibly 
make  use  of.  The  country  claimed  by  the  two  captains  is  at  least 
50  miles  in  length,  with  an  average  breadth  of  about  40  miles. 
Neither  of  them  can  establish  much  claim  in  right  of  occupation  by  their 
people,  and  the  ivhole  of  that  part  of  the  country  may  be  viewed  as  waste 
lands,  save  the  few  farms  Cornelius  Kok  took  upon  himself  to  sell  to  boers." 

We  shall  have  occasion  to  use  Major  Warden's  report 
again  when  reviewing  the  claim  set  up  by  the  present 
Waterboer  in  1870.  No  one  acquainted  with  the 
country  can  deny  the  British  Resident's  correct  view 
when  he  pointed  out  that  the  two  chiefs  were  already 
in  possession  of  far  more  land  than  they  could  use. 
To  this  day  Waterboer' s  Griquas  have  vastly  more 
land  north  of  the  Vaal  than  they  know  what  to  do  with ; 
they  do  possess  a  few  horses,  scanty  flocks  of  goats, 
and  a  limited  number  of  cattle  ;  but  as  for  cultivation 
or  any  real  utilization  of  their  extensive  territory,  it  is 
a  myth,  a  snare,  and  a  delusion.     Yet  now,  wonderful 

*  Vide-p.  80,  Blue  Book,  "  Correspondence,  H.M.  High  Commissioner 
and  the  President  O.F.S.,  1871."  (Note :  In  future  this  Blue  Book  will 
be  referred  to  as  "  Capetown  Blue  Book,  No.  1." 


74  waterboer' s  plot. 

to  tell,   Great  Britain  seizes  u])on  and  plunders  the 
Free  State  in  order  to  give  them  more,  it  is  pretended  ! 

Sir  P.  Maitland's  alleged  promise  was  never  carried 
out,  nor  ever  even  officially  mentioned ;  so  with  that 
we  have  no  more  to  do.  And  the  real  desire  of  the 
two  chiefs,  in  1850,  to  get  more  land,  and  within  the 
Sovereignty,  was  simply  the  very  natural  one  of 
putting  money  in  their  purses  by  afterwards  selling  it 
to  the  boers,  as  Adam  Kok  had  been  doing  for  so 
many  years  with  profit  to  himself,  and  the  gratification 
of  which  pleasing  process  Cornelius  Kok  had  already 
tasted  in  an  illegal,  surreptitious  sort  of  way.  At  the 
present  time  the  claim  to  the  same  land,  and  a  great 
deal  more,  was  put  forth  by  Waterboer  in  consequence 
of  the  diamond  discovery,  and,  reprehensibly  enough, 
enforced  per  fas  et  nefas  by  the  Colonial  Government, 
so  that  they  might  have  a  finger  in  the  glittering  pie ! 

Having,  in  1850,  vainly  put  forward  an  unfounded 
claim  to  the  triangular  patch  of  ground  at  the  fork  of 
the  Vaal  and  Orange  rivers, — as  about  this  time  lands 
were  being  continually  bought  by  boers  from  any 
Griquas  who  could  show  a  legitimate  title, — it  cannot 
be  a  matter  of  smrprise  that  Waterboer  again,  in  1851, 
advanced  an  even  more  preposterous  claim  than  that 
of  the  previous  year  to  territory  south  of  the  Vaal,  in 
a  letter  addressed  by  him  (or,  rather,  one  of  his  clever 
missionary  friends,  who  tvould  attend  to  political  as 
well  as  theological  matters),  on  the  24th  of  May,  to 
Governor  Sir  Harry  Smith,  declaring  that — 

*  "Having  heard  that  a  large  proportion  of  my  territory  {sic!) 

Vide  p.  46,  Annexures,  Blue  Book,  O.F.S.,  "  Minutes  of  Meeting  at 
Nooitgedacht." 


waterboer's  first  claim.  75 

situated  between  the  Madder  and  Mack  (Orange)  Rivers,  has  lately 
been  taken  possession  of  by  the  British  Resident  .  .  I  went  to 
Bloemfontein  to  see  him  on  the  subject.  To  my  great  surprise  he 
told  me  that  such  was  the  fact,  and  when  I  urged  my  claim  .  .  not 
only  on  the  ground  of  occupation  (?)  and  the  right  of  chieftainship 
exercised  over  it  for  many  years,  but  also  that  my  right  to  it  was 
recognized  by  the  British  Government,  in  a  treaty.  (Sir  B. 
D'Urban's)  .  .  .  the  British  Eesident  did  not  seem  to  be  aware  of 
the  nature  or  stipulation  of  that  treaty." 

This  constitutes  the  first  definite  claim  ever  put 
forth  to  the  country  between  the  angle  of  confluence 
of  the  Vaal  and  Orange  rivers- — now  known  as 
Albania.  The  alleged  verbal  promise  of  Sir  P. 
Maitland  had  by  this  time  (thanks  to  the  lucubrations 
of  the  clerical  politician  aforementioned)  transmuted 
and  culminated  in  a  much  more  formidable  and 
pretentious  claim. 

Having  taken  particular  pains  to  investigate  the 
matter,  I  long  ago  concluded,  before  leaving  the 
country,  that  this  asserted  "  occupancy  and  chief- 
tainship right "  was  utter  bosh.  About  the  year  1846 
some  of  Waterboer's  Griquas  went  to  a  spot  known  as 
Backhouse,  on  the  Vaal  River,  between  the  Orange  and 
Modder  rivers,  under  the  guidance  of  a  Mr.  J. 
Hughes,  a  missionary,  intending  to  construct  certain 
irrigation  works  (it  is  alleged).  But  nothing  was  done, 
although  the  missionary  put  up  a  station  there.  The 
only  other  spot  ever  occupied  by  Griquas  as  a  kraal 
was  at  Ramah,  on  the  Orange  River,  and  they  were 
Philippolis  Griquas  ;  but  how  this  proves  that  those  of 
Griqua  Town  had  a  territorial  right,  or  how  it  illus- 
trates Waterboer's  title  to  the  whole  intervening  tract 
of  1,500  square  miles  and  more,  utterly  unoccupied 
by  his  people,  deponent  cannot  tell. 


7G  THE   CLAIM    ANALYZED. 

And  we  have  seen  that  Governor  after  Governor,  and 
official  after  official,  of  the  Cape  Colony,  thought  like- 
wise, and  quite  ignored  any  Griquas  south  of  the  Vaal 
besides  Adam  Kok's.  As  for  the  claim  by  right  of 
treaty,  as  we  have  before  pointed  out,  that  instrument 
only  mentions  the  place  Raimah,  belonging  to  Adam 
Kok)  not  one  word  appearing  therein  regarding  lands 
to  the  eastward  of,  or,  indeed,  inland  from  it  at  all ; 
and  as  that  treaty  very  shortly  (next  year,  in  fact) 
expired,  so  any  claim  under  it  came  to  an  end,  and 
thus  disposes  of  the  following  statement  of  Waterboer 
or  his  missionary  in  the  next  paragraph  to  that  already 
quoted  : —    • 

"The  British  Resident,  when  he  saw  the  treaty,  admitted  that 
my  claim  to  the  tract  of  ground  was  clear I  would,  there- 
fore, beg  that  your  Excellency  would  make  arrangements  for  the 
restoration  of  that  tract  of  land  to  me  and  my  people." 

A  rather  cool  request  as  neither  Major  Warden 
nor  his  commission  could  find  any  possessors  when  they 
surveyed  that  part  of  the  country  just  previously. 

1.  His  Excellency  Sir  H.  Smith  took  no  notice  of 
the  matter. 

2.  Major  Warden,  in  his  report  lately  quoted  from, 
expressly  declared  that  "both  Waterboer  anclKok  are  chiefs 
residing  with  their  people  beyond  the  Vaal  River." 

3.  *  Lieut. -Gen.  Sir  Geo.  Cathcart,  who  succeeded 
Sir  H.  Smith  as  Governor  of  the  Cape,  in  a  despatch 
to  the  Secretary  of  State  for  the  Colonies,  dated  Fort 
Beaufort,  May  20,  1852,  states  : — 

"  On  the  subject  of  the  affairs  of  the  Orange  Eiver  Sovereignty, 
within  that  extensive  district  of  country  nearly  1,000  miles  in  cir- 

*  Vide  p.  38,  Blue  Book  (No.  2),  "Orange  River  Correspondence, 
1851-4." 


OFFICIAL   PREVARICATION.  77 

cumference,  embraced  between  the  Orange  and  Vaal  rivers,  with 
the  exception  of  the  small  insulated  territory  of  the  Griqua  Chief,  Adam 
Kok.  .  .  .  the  whole  population  of  European  origin  as  well  as 
aborigines  are  under   Her   Majesty's    Government." 

This  "  exception"  is  distinct  enough,  and  we  shall 
see,  by  and  by,  that  in  order  to  get  out  of  another 
difficulty — vis.,  that  when  the  British  sovereignty  was 
abandoned,  all  its  rights,  privileges,  and  territories 
were  made  over  to  the  Orange  Free  State, — Water- 
boer's  present  backers  and  supporters,  the  Colonial 
Government,  although  claiming  a  large  tract  of  ground 
for  him,  South  of  the  Vaal,  declare  that,  u  He  tvas  al- 
vjays  independent  also,  and  was  never  subject  to  Her 
Majesty 's  Government,"  &c. ;  thus  very  simply  getting 
fixed  between  the  horns  of  a  dilemma. 

In  order  to  afford  proof  of  so  grave  a  charge  at  once, 
I  quote  the  following  passage  from  a  despatch  of 
Lieut. -Gen.  Hay,  then  Governor  of  the  Cape,  and 
High  Commissioner,  in  support  of  the  present  Water- 
boer's  claim  to  the  diamond-fields,  bearing  date 
Capetown,  12th  November,  1870,  and  written  to  the 
President  of  the  Orange  Free  State  : — 

4.  *  Paragraph  21,  referring  to  the  "  difficulty" 
above  mentioned,  states : 

"It  appears  to  me  that  Sir  H.  Smith  proclaimed  Her  Majesty's 
sovereignty  over  territories — " 

No,  that  is  not  the  truth,  it  was  over  all  the  terri- 
tories,— "  proclaim,  declare,  and  make  known  our  sove- 
reignty over  the  territories  north  of  the  Great  Orange 
River,  including"  all  known  chiefs,  by  name,   u  so  far 

*  Vide  p.  99,  Blue  Book,  "Correspondence  between  H.M.  High 
Commissioner  and  the  President  of  the  Orange  Free  State,  1871." 
Capetown. 


78  GENERAL  HAY'S  LOGIC. 

north  as  to  the  Vaal  River" — so  says  the  Queen's 
Charter  * — 

" — over  territories  between  the  Orange  and  Vaal  rivers,  belonging 
to  certain  chiefs  (mentioned  by  name),  and  other  minor  chiefs  whose 
names  are  not  given.  Waterboer  was  not  named.  Nor  was  he  a 
minor  chief  to  these  who  were  named,  such  as  Adam  Kok,  Mos- 
hesh,  &c." 

An  utterly  incorrect  statement.     We  have  seen  that 

Adam  Kok  was  the  principal  or  paramount  Griqua 

chief;  Moshesh,  the  great  chief  of  the  Basutos,  could 

put   5,000  warriors  in  the  field,  whereas  Waterboer' s 

Griquas  never  numbered  200  families  in  all ! 

"Nor  was  he,  in  fact,  resident  between  the  Orange  and  Vaal  rivers,; 
which  seems  sufficient  proof  that  his  lands  were  not  intended  to  be 
included  within  the  limits  of  the  Sovereignty !" 

No,  General  Hay,  this  quibble  will  not  do.  The 
Sovereignty  embraced  every  inch  of  ground  within  its 
clearly  defined  limits ;  yet  you  would  try  to  prove 
that,  although  Waterboer  himself  was  not  within  it, 
yet  lands  of  his  were,  and  that,  because  he  was  not 
mentioned,  those  lands  were  not  included  within 
the  jurisdiction,  &c,  of  the  Sovereignty.  If  he  was 
not  named  because  not  resident  there,  as  they 
were  not  named,  neither  were  lands  of  his  either 
included  or  excepted  from  the  limits  of  the  Sovereignty. 
It  is  astounding  that  one  moment  the  Colonial  Govern- 
ment maintains  Waterboer's  claims  to  land  south  of 
the  Vaal  (South  Adamantia,  in  fact),  and  the  next,  in 
order  to  avoid  a  destructive  argument,  denies  them  ! 

5.  If  any  further  proof  were  wanting  that  at  this 
time  no  one  ever  dreamed  of  admitting  the  Waterboer 
claims  to  territory  south  of  the  Vaal,  it  is  supplied  by 


*  P.  133,  Blue  Book,  No.  2, "  Orange  River  Correspondence,  1851—4.' 


Solomon's  wisdom.  79 

the  present  chief  (the  second)  of  that  name  himself! 
When,  in  1864,  some  such  flimsy  claim  was  again 
brought  forward  by  the  Griqua  Town  Chief,  and  urged 
against  the  right  of  the  Orange  Free  State  to  the  land  in 
question,  Waterboer  produced  the  sworn  deposition  of 
a  Mr.  Edward  Solomon,  a  minister  of  the  Bedford  Free 
Church,  and  formerly  of  Griqua  Town,  in  his  favour ; 
from  which  we  find  that,  after  endorsing  the  com- 
plaints of  Waterboer  already  quoted  from  the  latter' s 
letter  to  Sir  H.  Smith,  he  declares  that : 

(*)  "  When  Her  Majesty's  Assistant  Commissioners,  Hogge  and 
Owen,  arrived  in  the  country,  Waterboer  also  wrote  to  them,  complain- 
ing of  the  act  of  the  British  Resident.  This  I  know  as  /was  the 
writer  of  the  letter."  (Oh,  oh  !  so  here  we  have  the  political  mis- 
sionary. He,  no  doubt,  was  the  inventor  of  its  contents,  as  well  as 
its  writer.  Certainly  not  a  very  disinterested  witness ;  but  he 
proves  too  much.  In  railing  against  the  injustice  of  the  British 
officials,  and  their  neglect  of  his  protege"* 's  claims,  he  clearly  demon- 
strates that  the  latter  were  disallowed.) 

u  A  letter  was  also  written  to  Sir  George  Cathcart  on  the  same 
subject,  but  the  only  reply  ever  received  to  those  different  letters 
and  remonstrances,  as  far  as  I  know,  up  to  July  1857.  .  .  .  was  a 
verbal  one  through  Mr.  Owen,  which  was  delivered  to  me  with  a 
request  that  I  would  communicate  it  to  Waterboer,  '  that  his  Excel- 
lency, Sir  GK  Cathcart,  had  received  Waterboer's  letter,  and  that  he 
(Waterboer)  might  rest  assured  that  justice  would  be  done  him.'" 


Then  comes  an  impertinent  paragraph  reflecting 
upon  Mr.  Owen  and  General  Cathcart,  proving  that 
the  reverend  gentleman  was  rather  irritable  as  well  as 
political.  "  Justice,"  no  doubt,  was  "  done"  to  Water- 
boer ;  and  I  for  one  would  be  extremely  averse  to 
question  any  act  of  General  Cathcart's.  Indeed,  from 
the  principles   of  high  honour  and  justice  pervading 

*  Vide  p.  49,  Annexures,   Blue  Book,  O.F.S. "  Minutes  of  Meeting 
at  Nooitgedacht,  1870." 


80  VALE  !    SOLOMON. 

every  despatch  lie  wrote,  I  have  experienced  greater 
pleasure  than  ever  before  fell  to  my  lot  during  critical 
investigation  and  analysis  of  diplomatic  and  official 
papers.  Knowing  that  Waterboer  had  not  a  tittle  of 
right  to  land  south  of  the  Vaal,  he  never  recognized 
his  claims. 

"When  Sir  George  Clerk  visited  the  Sovereignty  as  Her 
Majesty's  Special  Commissioner,  this  matter  was  also  brought 
before  him." 

(By  our  reverend  friend,  again,  it  appears.) 

"  I  spoke  to  him  several  times  about  it." 

(Alas !  Sir  George  Clerk,  like  his  predecessors,  gave 
no  heed  to  the  plaint ;  and  the  same  may  be  said  of 
the  statement  with  which  the  reverend  gentleman's 
deposition  concludes  :) 

"When  in  Cape  Town,  in  1855,  I  had  several  "opportunities "of 
mentioning  this  subject  to  his  Excellency  Sir  George  Grey  ;  but,  'as 
I  was  not  authorized  by  the  chief,  Waterboer,  to  act  for  him,  it  is 
not  necessary  to  state  any  particulars  of  my  interview  with  his 
Excellency." 

(That  is  a  pity,  because  those  who  do  not  honour 
and  respect  Mr.  Solomon  may  conclude  that,  as  he 
was  trying  to  give  evidence  in  favour  of  Waterboer, 
these  suppressed  "  particulars  "  were  adverse.) 

Deeming  the  five  cases  in  which  it  is  proved  that  no 
Griqua  rights,  save  those  of  Adam  Kok,  were  ever  ad- 
mitted south  of  the  Vaal  up  to  1852  amply  sufficient, 
in  addition  to  the  evidence  previously  adduced  upon 
that  subject,  we  will  proceed  with  our  narration  of 
political  events. 

In  December,  1852,  An  dries  Waterboer,  the  chief 
whom  we  have  seen  old  Dam  Kok  appointed  over  Gri- 
qua Town,  and  whose  claims  south  of  the  Vaal  we  have 


DEATH    OF    A.    WATERBOER.  81 

just  dealt  with,  died  at  that  place,  and  was  succeeded 
by  his  son,  the  present  chief,  Nicolas  Waterboer,  upon 
the  election  of  the  people,  and  not,  apparently,  by 
reason  of  any  hereditary  right,  which  latter  seems  to 
have  pertained  solely  to  the  Koks. 

Immediately  afterwards,  by  the  aid  and  advice,  I 
believe,  of  a  Mr.  J.  Hughes,  a  missionary  residing  at 
Griqua  Town,  several  of  the  burghers  or  councillors  of 
that  place  applied  for  the  recognition  of  their  new 
chief,  and  the  renewal  of  the  old  D' Urban  Treaty.  In 
their  letter  to  Sir  George  Cathcart  they  say : — 

*  "  That  the  said  N.  Waterboer  hereby  begs  and  requests  for 
himself  the  approval  and  acknowledgment  of  the  Colonial  and 
English  Governments  of  his  being  the  lawful  Captain  and  Chief  of 
Griqua  Town  and  surrounding  districts." 

Here,  en  passant,  we  may  observe  that  no  mention 
is  made  of  territory  south  of  the  Vaal ;  and  it  would  be 
absurd  to  consider  any  lands  beyond  that  important 
river,  and  so  distant,  as  forming  part  of  Griqua  Towns 
"  surrounding  districts." 

After  recognizing  N.  Waterboer  in  the  above  position, 
the  Governor's  reply  expressly  states  that  "the  treaty 
entered  into  by  Sir  B.  D'Urban  with  the  late  worthy 
and  faithful  ally,  Andries  Waterboer,  was  personal, 
and  does  not  extend  to  aborigines  consequent  to  his 
decease  :  it  has  therefore  ceased  to  he  in  force?'* 

It  was  never  renewed,  although  the  present  Colonial 
Government  have  incorrectly  chosen  to  term  N.  Water- 
boer, in  the  diamond  field  controversy,  an  ally. 

During  the  next  few  years,  as  the  Free  State  farmers 
did  not  occupy  the  whole  of  the  lands,  to  which  the 
Griquas'  disallowed  claim  had  been  made,  these  latter 
gentry  hit  upon  a  very  ingenious  device  by  which  to 

*  Vide  p.  2,  Blue  Book  Qso. 3),  "  Orange  River  Correspondence,  1851 — 4." 


82  ORIGIN    OF   VETBERG-LINE. 

establish  a  right  thereto.  Waterboer  and  Cornelius 
Kok  began  to  squabble  about  it,  and  to  dispute  its 
ownership ;  and  as,  of  course,  they  could  not  agree, 
eventually  called  upon  Adam  Kok  to  decide  between 
them.  By  this  time  the  Sovereignty  had  been  aban- 
doned, and  the  Orange  Free  State  established.  Inte- 
rested, naturally  enough,  in  the  simulated  disputes  and 
the  revived  claims  going  on  to  lands  within  the  boun- 
dary which  had  been  made  over  to  them  in  its  integrity 
by  the  British  Government,  the  Free  State  executive 
instead  of  treating  the  two  Northern  Griqua  chiefs 
with  the  indifference  Her  Majesty's  officers  had,  and 
simply  (as  they  were  fully  entitled  to  do)  following  so 
good  an  example  and  ignoring  their  claims,  were  so 
inordinately  anxious  to  preserve  peace  and  do  justice  in  the 
matter  as  to  fall  into  the  Griquas'  trap,  by  paying  respect 
to  their  disputes,  and  by  also  calling  upon  Adam  Kok 
to  decide  and  arbitrate  between  them !  And  I  am  able 
to  declare  that  this  act  constituted  the  first  official  recog- 
nition of  the  right  of  either  Waterboer  or  Cornelius 
Kok  to  any  interference  with  land  south  of  the  Vaal. 

The  result  of  this  mild  course  was  the  definition  of 
the  following  boundary  line  by  Adam  Kok  between 
the  rival  claimants.  This  is  known  as  the  "  Vetberg 
line,"  and,  being  accepted  by  the  Orange  Free  State 
Government,  gave  to  Waterboer  his  first  and  only  legal 

right  on  that  side  of  the  Vaal : — 

"  Vetberg,  10th  October,  1855. 

*  "The  boundary  line  fixed  between  Captain  N.  Waterboer  and 
Captain  C.  Kok  by  A.  Kok,  Captain,  as  an  impartial,  with  leave  of 
J.  Bloem,  Captain,  who  has  given  his  consent  in  writing  to  be  satis- 
fied as  A.  Kok,  Captain,  shall  fix  the  line.    The  line  is  as  follows  : — 

"  Commencing  at  the  confluence  of  the  Riet  and  Vaal  rivers,  up 
along  the  Eiet  River,  to  a  drift  between  the  Klip  and  Saltpan  drifts  ; 

*  Vide  p.  28,  Annexures,  Blue  Book,O.F.S.,  "  Minutes  of  Meeting  at  Nooitgedacht, 
1870,"  and  pp.  19  and  69,  Capetown  Blue  Book,  "Correspondence  between  H.M. 
High  Commissioner  and  the  President  of  the  O.F.S.,  1871.' 


THE   VETBERG-LINE.  83 

from  there  to  a  Koppje;  and  from  the  Koppje  a  straight  line  to 
a  Yaal  ridge  ;  and  from  there  to  a  detached  hill  of  Yetberg,  to  the 
outside  hill,  and  with  a  straight  line  in  the  pan  of  Rabak,  over  the 
sand  rise  (bult)  to  the  Kalkleegte,  which  runs  to  the  pan  ;  from 
there  with  straight  line  between  the  Klein  Karree  and  Zout  Fon- 
tein,  to  the  Koppje  on  which  a  beacon  is  placed,  to  the  boundary 
line  of  A.  Kok,  Captain. 

"  It  is  further  fixed  for  a  free  passage  to  Philippolis,  and  Campbell 
and  Grriqua  Town,  1,500  yards  at  either  side  of  the  defined  line,  of 
which  no  portion  shall  be  sold ;  and  it  shall  be  protected  by  the 
Captains  of^Campbell  and  Grriqua  Town. 

"  Adam  Kok,  Captain. 

"  Approved  by  the  undermentioned  council : — 

"PlET   PlENAAR, 

"  Petrus  Pienaae, 
"Stoffel  Yisagie, 
"Adam  Kok." 

In  consequence  of  the  Free  State's  gratuitous  act 
approving  the  above  definition,  I  shall  henceforth  con- 
sider both  C.  Kok  and  Waterboer  as  fully  entitled  to 
certain  territory  south  of  the  Vaal — that  of  the  latter 
chief  comprising  the  tract  of  land  between  the  con- 
fluence of  the  Vaal  and  Orange  rivers,  the  Vetberg 
line,  and  part  of  the  line  from  Ramah  to  David's  Graf, 
as  shown  by  the  annexed  diagram,  C.  This  territory 
will  for  the  ^future  be  spoken  of  as  Albania,  the  name 
by  which  it  has  been  known  for  some  years. 

A  curious  difficulty  arose  when  the  position  of  the 
Yetberg  line  was  known.  It  was  found  that  two  and 
a  half  farms  belonging  to  Free  State  farmers  fell  within 
Waterboer' s  boundary,  and,  as  these  farms  had  been 
bought,  andHhe  purchase  ratified  by  the  British  Go- 
vernment, during  the  existence  of  the  Sovereignty,  the 
Free  State  authorities  at  once  communicated  with  the 
then  Governor  of  the   Cape,  Sir  Geo.  Grey,  K.C.B. 

g  2 


84:  A   BOUNDAEY   DILEMMA. 

From  this  despatch,  dated  Bloonifontcin,  13th  June, 
1856,  the  following  extracts  arc  taken: — 

11  Waterboer's  line,  as  thus  defined,  cut  off  several  farms  which 
had  been  sold  by  subjects  of  the  two  Koks  to  burghers  of  the  Free 
State,  and  among  the  rest  that  were  out  of  our  territory,  the  under- 
mentioned two  and  a  half  farms  for  which  land  certificates  had  been 
granted  by  the  British  Resident. 

"1st. — The  farm  Driekopspan,  No.  234,  situated  near  Ramah, 
granted  to  "W.  D.  Jacobs,  as  shown  by  land  certificate,  signed  H. 
D.  "Warden,  and  dated  10th  March,  1349. 

"  2nd.— The  farm  Waterbak,  No.  235,  situated  on  the  Eiet 
River,  and  granted  to  Solomon  Yermaak,  as  per  land  certificate, 
dated  16th  March,  1849,  and  signed  H.  D.  Warden. 

"  3rd. — The  farm  Scholtzfontein,  No.  380,  situated  between  the 
Riet  and  Orange  rivers,  and  granted  to  S.  B.  L.  Swanepoel,  by 
land  certificate,  dated  1st  March,  1852,  and  signed  H.  D.  Warden; 
of  this  last  about  the  half  reverts  to  Waterboer. 

"  It  may  be  proper  to  mention  that  these  farms  have  all  been 
sold  to  second  parties,  at  the  least  once,  at  average  prices. 

.  .  .  "By  article  4  of  the  Convention  entered  into  with  H.  M. 
Special  Commissioner,  Sir  G.  Clerk,  it  is  agreed  that  all  former 
British  subjects  shall  be  considered  to  be  guaranteed  in  the  posses- 
sion of  their  estates  by  the  New  Orange  River  Government. 

"  If  the  Volksraad  should  consent  to  the  proposed  line,  owners 
of  the  farms  abovementioned  would  have  a  claim  on  this  Govern- 
ment for  compensation.  .  .  . 

"  In  the  event,  on  the  other  hand,  of  the  Eaad  refusing  to  accept 
the  line,  this  Government  will  have  to  protect  the  possession  of 
these  farms,  which  may  give  rise  to  serious  disputes,  if  not  to 
hostilities.  *  ..." 

Nothing  could  more  forcibly  illustrate  the  extreme 
anxiety  of  the  Free  State  to  act  justly,  and  avoid  en- 
croaching upon  Griqua  territory,  than  the  above  cor- 
respondence ;    nor   could   anything   be    found    more 

*  Vide  p.  53,  Annexures,  Blue  Book,  O.F.S.  "Minutes  of  Meeting 
at  Nooitgedacht,  1870/' 


sir  g.  grey's  tolicy.  85 

strikingly  to  confound  and  refute  the  present  Colonial 
Government  and  its  mendacious  assertions  as  to  its 
motives  in  seizing  the  diamond  fields  being  to  support 
Waterboer  against  Free  State  encroachments  ! 

Instead  of  temporising  with  so  utterly  insignificant 
a  rogue  as  the  land  thief,  Waterboer,  the  Free  State 
authorities  would  have  been  entirely  justified  in  re- 
fusing to  hear  his  impudent  claims,  and  in  driving 
him  back  to  his  home  across  the  Vaal;  indeed,  it 
would  have  been  the  wisest,  most  just,  course  they 
could  have  adopted.  They  would  have  followed  the 
British  policy  in  that  matter,  and  would  certainly 
have  prevented  all  fear  of  future  trouble  with  Water- 
boer about  land  boundaries. 

The  following  is  the  only  reply  the  Free  State  Go- 
vernment ever  received  to  its  despatch  just  quoted : — 

"  Government  House,  Cape  Town,  29th  Nov.,  1856. 

*  "Sir, — I  am  instructed  by  H.  E.  the  High  Commissioner  to 
acquaint  you,  for  the  information  of  his  Honour,  the  President,  that, 
owing  to  some  inadvertency  of  his  Honour's  letters  of  the  9th  and 
13th  June  last, — that  of  former  date  bearing  congratulations  upon 
the  happy  termination  of  the  late  war,  the  latter  date  relative  to 
the  satisfactory  settlement  of  the  boundary  lines  in  the  Griqua  territory, 
— they  did  not  reach  H.  E.  until  the  28th  of  the  present  on  the, 
thus  preventing  him  from  taking  them  into  his  earlier  considera- 
tion. 

"I  have  the  honour  to  be,  Sir,  yours,  &c, 

"(A  true  copy.)     (Signed)         "Ered  Teavers,  Captain,  E.A. 

"F.  K  Hohne.  (  ) 

"  Government  Secretary.  "Secretary  to  High  Commissioner" 

From  this  reply  it  is  quite  evident  that  Sir  George 

Grey  rightly  left  the  Free  State  to   settle  its   own 

affairs,  and  acted  in  strict  accordance  with  the  stipu- 

*  Fide  p.  55,  Blue  Book,   O.F.S.,  "Minutes  of  Meeting  at  Nooitge- 
dacht,  1870." 


8()  THE    DILEMMA   ARRANGED. 

lations  in  the  treaty  or  convention  declaring  its  entire 
freedom  and  independence.  The  Free  State  Govern- 
ment having  received  the  above  tacit  consent  to  its 
policy,  maintained  the  Vetberg  line  as  defined  by 
Adam  Kok,  but  altered  so  as  to  leave  out  of  the  cun- 
ning Mr.  Watcrbocr's  newly  discovered  and  now 
admitted  territory  of  Albania  the  two  and  a  half  farms 
owned  by  right  of  British  land  certificates.  From 
that  day  until  the  seizure  of  the  diamond  fields — some 
fifteen  years ! — this  arrangement  had  every  force  of 
law,  was  generally  recognized,  and  the  owners  of  the 
respective  farms  remained  in  the  unquestioned  and 
undisturbed  possession  to  which  they  were  so  strongly 
and  undoubtedly  entitled — firstly  by  the  unreserved 
guarantee  of  the  British  Sovereignty  Government, 
and  then  by  that  of  the  Free  State. 


EXTENSION    OF   THE   FREE    STATE, 


CHAPTER  V. 

Sale  of  the  Campbell  Lands  and  Remaining  Portions 
of  Adam  Kok's  Territory  to  the  Orange  Free 
State  ;  Hegira  of  the  Southern  Griquas. 

Abdication  of  Cornelius  Kok  in  Favour  of  his  Nephew,  Adam. — 
Death  of  Cornelius. — Waterboer's  Fraudulent  Claims. — 
His  Failure  to  Obtain  any  Portion  of  the  Campbell  Lands 
by  Exchanging  Part  of  Albania. — Mr.  H.  Harvey's  Power 
of  Attorney  from  Adam  Kok,  and  Sale  of  that  Chief's 
remaining  Territory  and  the  Campbell  Lands  to  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  Free  State. — Deed  of  Sale. — Waterboer's 
Tricky  Policy  to  Obtain  Part  of  the  Sold  Ground. — Adam 
Kok's  Complicity. — Comment  thereon. — A  Summary  of  the 
various  Territorial  Eights  in  Adamantia. 

Although  Adam  Kok's  boundaries  were  faithfully 
respected  for  a  number  of  years  by  the  Free  State, 
yet,  day  by  day,  his  subjects  sold  and  alienated  away 
from  the  tribe  for  ever,  to  the  industrious  boers,  lands 
and  farms  they  were  themselves  too  lazy  to  utilize. 
In  this  way  it  came  to  pass  that  within  eight  years 
after  the  Convention  (quoted  in  extcnso,  Chapter  III.) 
the  Griquas  of  Philippolis  had  disposed  of  almost  all 
that  fine  tract  of  country  originally  secured  to  them  as 
the  "  inalienable  "  territory  by  Sir  P.  Maitland,  and 
now,  in  1861,  sought  to  sell  what  remained,  and 
betake  themselves  to  "other  fields  and  pastures  new  ;" 


88  ABDICATION    OF   CORNELIUS    KOK. 

the  British  Government  having  (it  appears)  promised 
Adam  Kok  a  location  in  some  waste  lands — known  as 
No  Man's  Land — on  the  western  frontier  of  Natal. 

In  the  meanwhile,  however,  an  event  had  transpired 
which,  unnoticed  and  unimportant  enough  at  the  time, 
has  now  become  a  matter  of  considerable  interest,  and 
requires  to  be  mentioned  by  us  in  its  proper  chrono- 
logical order  before  dealing  with  the  hegira. 

About  the  end  of  the  year  1857  (according  to 
Hendrik  Hendrikse's  statement  already  referred  to  in 
Chapters  II.  and  IV.),  Cornelius  Kok  being  then  very 
old  and  feeble,  and  feeling  unable  to  continue  the 
proper  government  of  his  people,  called  together  a 
meeting  of  them,  which  Adam  Kok,  the  principal 
Griqua  chief,  had  also  been  induced  to  attend  from 
Philippolis.  At  this  meeting  Cornelius  Kok,  by  the 
consent  of  his  subjects,  formally  abdicated  his  position 
as  the  chief  and  captain  of  Campbell,  and  made  over 
the  future  rule  and  government  to  his  rightful  heir  and 
successor,  Captain  Adam  Kok,  his  nephew, — from 
whose  father  he  had  received  the  dignity  at  the  same 
time  the  late  Andries  Waterboer  was  appointed  to 
Griqua  Town. 

Adam  Kok  accepted  the  responsibility  and  authority 
of  the  chieftainship  of  the  Campbell  lands ;  but,  as  he 
resided  so  far  away,  at  Philippolis,  appointed  Mr.  John 
Bartlett,  the  son  of  a  former  missionary  at  Campbell, 
as  vice  or  provisional  captain  in  his  place. 

Shortly  afterwards,  early  in  1858,  old  Cornelius 
Kok  died,  and  at  his  death-bed  the  above  and  other 
political  matters  were  further  arranged. 

Waterboer  seems  to  have  been  personally  present, 
with  some  of  his  people  and  councillors,  at  both  events. 


waterboer's  plot.  89 

Not  at  that  time,  nor  for  years  after,  did  he  raise  any 
objection  to  the  full  right  of  Cornelius  Kok  to 
bequeath,  retire,  and  relinquish  in  favour  of  Adam 
Kok ;  neither  did  he  question  the  latter' s  complete 
and  hereditary  right  to  inherit  and  accept.  Indeed, 
there  is  ample  evidence  to  prove  that  he  thoroughly 
endorsed  everything  that  was  then  executed  and 
arranged. 

Yet  now  both  him  and  his  backers,  since  diamonds 
have  been  discovered  within  the  territory  commonly 
assigned  to  the  late  Cornelius  Kok,  have  the  brazen 
effrontery  and  hardihood  to  deny  and  dispute  all  those 
facts  to  which  he  had  formerly  agreed ;  to  challenge 
not  only  Adam  Kok's  right  of  succession,  but  to 
declare  that  Cornelius  was  not  an  independent  chief, 
but  Waterboer's  petty  subordinate ! — that  the  Camp- 
bell lands,  in  fact,  belonged  to  him,  Waterboer  ;  that 
he,  and  not  Dam  Kok,  had  appointed  Cornelius  to  the 
chieftainship  of  Campbell ;  that,  upon  the  latter's 
death,  the  land  and  its  Suzerainship  should  have 
reverted  to  him ;  together  with  many  other  pre- 
posterous claims  and  assertions  never  mentioned 
at  the  time,  never  heard  of  before,  and  which  we  possess 
a  voluminous  mass  of  evidence  to  refute,  by  and  by,  at 
the  proper  place,  when  we  come  to  deal  with  the 
Anglo- Griqua  claim  to,  and  forcible  seizure  of,  the 
diamond  fields. 

After  exercising  undisputed  authority  over  the 
Campbell  land  Griquas  for  upwards  of  four  years, 
Adam  Kok  gave  up  his  right  as  their  territorial  chief, 
and  the  exodus  of  the  Griquas  of  Philippolis  occurred. 

The  way  in  which  Adam  Kok  surrendered  his 
light  to,  and  rule  over,  the  Campbell  lands  is  highly 


90  CAMPBELL-LANDS   REFUSED   FOR   ALBANIA. 

significant,  and  Waterboer,  on  starting  his  present 
impudent  claim  to  them,  must  surely  have  trusted  to 
the  chapter  of  accidents  for  the  oblivion  thereof ;  but 
of  this  hereafter. 

At  the  close  of  1861,  having  already  arranged  for 
the  sale  of  all  his  remaining  land,  known,  as  the 
"  open,'1  or  Government  land  of  the  Griquas  of 
Philippolis,  Adam  Kok  visited  his  northern  brethren 
over  the  Vaal,  to  take  farewell,  to  enrol  all  who 
preferred  to  accompany  him  to  the  new  home  in 
No  Man's  Land,  and  especially  to  settle  the  future  of  the 
Campbell  lands.  To  arrange  the  latter  matter  a  large 
meeting  was  held  at  Vetberg  (where  the  line  of  1855 
had  been  made)  between  Adam  Kok  and  his 
councillors  and  Waterboer  and  his  councillors.  What 
was  the  object  of  that  meeting?  Surely  the  present 
claimant  to  Adamantia  must  forget !  Why,  neither 
more  nor  less  than  to  exchange  those  very  Campbell 
lands  (which  Waterboer  now  says  are  his)  for  Albania  ! 
But  as  only  dry  ground,  without  streams  or  fountains, 
was  offered  in  that  sterile  region,  Adam  Kok 
peremptorily  broke  off  the  negociations,  refused  to 
exchange  any  part  or  portion  of  the  better  watered 
Campbell  grounds  for  that  sandy  desert,  and  at  once, 
on  the  spot,  ordered  to  be  written  out  and  given  to 
all  the  late  Cornelius  Kok's  people  title  deeds  of  their 
lands  and  estates,  with  full  right  to  sell  and  dispose  of 
them  to  whom  they  thought  fit,  Free  State  farmers 
or  others.  The  open,  or  Government  land,  such 
portions  of  the  territory  as  were  neither  let  out  in 
farms  nor  actually  occupied,  he  eventually  sold  to  the 
Free  State  Government  himself,  together  with  his 
territory  south  of  the  Vaal.     What,  then,  became  of 


mr.  harvey's  authority.  91 

Waterboer's  right  and  title  ?  And  how  was  it  that  at 
the  time  he  never  even  made  so  much  as  a  protest 
against  this  wholesale  alienation  and  disposal  of  his 
alleged  lands  ?     Echo  alone  replies. 

After  this  event  Adam  Kok,  by  the  medium  of  his 
agent,  Mr.  Henry  Harvey,  of  Philippolis,  effected  the 
sales  referred  to. 

The  legality  of  these  sales,  or,  rather,  a  part  of 
them,  having  been  subsequently  questioned,  and  the 
whole  of  them  being  now,  for  the  first  time,  disputed 
by  Waterboer,  it  is  necessary  to  quote  in  extenso 
whatever  official  documents  exist  in  connection  with 
the  original  transactions  ;  and  that  which  follows 
possesses  peculiar  importance,  as  Waterboer' s  British 
aiders  and  abettors  have  taken  up  the  cry  that  Mr. 
Harvey  sold  without  holding  sufficient  authority. 

POWER    OF    ATTOKNEY. 

^Translation.] 

*"I,  the  undersigned,  Adam  Kok,  Chief  of  the  Griquas  of  the 
town  and  district  of  Philippolis,  declare  hereby,  by  advice  and  con- 
sent of  my  Council,  who  have  also  signed  this,  to  nominate  and 
appoint,  and  in  the  best  way  to  empower,  Mr.  Henry  Harvey,  at  the 
present  time  my  general  agent,  with  power  of  substitution,  special 
as  my  agent,  empowered,  and  to  represent  me  in  all  cases  required 
to  be  done  and  executed  in  my  beforementioned  capacity  as  Chief ; 
to  attend  inspection  of  grounds  in  said  territory  ;  and  to  do  what  is 
required  of  me  to  be  done  in  my  before  mentioned  capacity ;  to 
settle  all  disputes,  if  possible,  that  may  arise  with  reference  to  my 
boundary,  and  more  especially  to  superintend  and  to  watch  the 
interests  of  the  Grikwa  Government,  with  reference  to  such  grounds 
as  may be  found  to  belong  to  the  Grikwa  Government ;  to  sell  such  grounds 
for  account  of  said     Government,  under  such  conditions  as  the  before 

*  Vide  p.  2,  Annexures,   No.   4,  Blue  Book,   O.F.S.,   "Minutes  of 
Meeting  at  Nooitgedacht,  1870;"  and  p.  49,  Capetown  Blue  Book,  No.  1. 


92  POWER    OF    ATTORNEY. 

mentioned  Henry  Harvey,  of  Paljasfontein,  in  the  Orange  Free  State 
may  deem  Jit ;  to  fix ,  to  receive,  the  amount  of  imr chase  money,  and  to 
grant  receipt ;  also  to  grant  title  deeds  of  the  same  to  purchaser  or  pur- 
chasers of  any  grounds,  or  portion  thereof,  lelonginy  to  the  said  Govern- 
ment ;  and,  if  required,  to  pass  and  give  transfers  ;  and,  in  default 
of  such  purchase  moneys  not  being  paid  on  such  grounds  or  portions 
by  the  purchasers  or  other  securities,  then  to  take  the  necessary 
lawful  steps  as  lie  may  deem  fit. 

u  Whereas  I  have  left  my  land  register  and  other  office  books  in 
hands  of  my  agent  and  representative,  the  said  Henry  Harvey,  to 
be  used  by  him  when  necessary,  I  hereby  give  him  full  power,  right, 
and  authority  to  produce  the  said  books,  or  any  thereof,  to  make 
extracts  of  the  same,  and  to  sign  such ;  all  of  which  shall  be  con- 
sidered as  if  done  by  me  in  nry  aforesaid  capacity ;  and  the  same 
to  be  recognized  in  all  Courts,  and  without  the  same. 

"  Further,  in  my  name,  and  on  my  behalf,  and  in  my  capacity  as 
Chief  of  the  Grikwa  nation,  and  as  representing  the  Grikwa  Govern 
ment  as  aforesaid,  with  his  Honour  the  President  of  the  Free  State, 
and  other  officials  appointed  by  the  Free  State  Government  or 
authorized,  if  necessary,  to  make  arrangements  to  decide  and  do 
what  is  required  with  reference  to  land  cases  in  the  Grikwa  terri- 
tory, or  any  other  case  or  cases  in  connection  with  the  interests  of 
the  Grikwa  Government,  as  if  I,  in  my  before  mentioned  capacity, 
being  present  and  acting,  could,  might,  or  ought  to  do. 

"  Lastly,  in  all  other  cases  not  described  in  this  power  to  repre- 
sent my  person  in  before  mentioned  capacit}r,  and  to  do  everything 
with  regard  to  the  Grikwa  Government  that  may  be  required,  all 
with  promise  of  approbation  and  indemnification,  according  to  law. 
"  Given  under  my  hand,  at  Philippolis,  this  loth  day  of  the 
month  August,  One   Thousand  Eight  Hundred  and 

Sixty- one. 

"ADAM  KOK,  Captain. 

i;  Witnesses : 

W.  J.  Crossley,  Government  Secretary, 

W.  F.  Hyde, 

W.  H.  van  der  Hoven, 

PlET  PlENAAR, 

LlJKAS  VAN  DER  WeSTHUIZEN, 

WlLLEM  BeZUIDENIIEUD." 

The  italicized  passages  in  the  above  document  are 


SILENCE    OF   WATERBOER.  93 

most  sweeping  and  unreserved.  For  my  [part,  with 
such  a  power,  it  is  not  what  Mr.  Harvey  could  sell  that 
I  should  be  troubled  to  ascertain,  but  what  he  could 
not.  En  abregc,  it  is  clear  that  his  authority  was  amply 
sufficient  to  sell  every  inch  of  ground  then  remaining 
to  the  Griqua  Government ;  and  that  he  did. 

It  is  important  to  remember  that  the  above  absolute 
power  of  attorney  was  conferred  upon  Mr.  Harvey  for 
the  express  purpose  of  selling  the  grounds  then  re- 
maining to  the  chief,  Adam  Kok,  and  whose  Govern- 
ment  we  have  seen  included  the  Campbell-lands  [since 
the  abdication  or  retirement  of  Cornelius  Kok  in  1857. 
It  is  also  a  striking  fact  that  not  for  several !  years 
before  nor  several  years  after  the  sales  by  Mr.  Harvey 
does  anything  at  all  appear  concerning  Waterboer, 
or  any  interest  whatever  of  Waterboer's  in  that  con- 
nection. Nothing  can  be  found  to  show  that  he  was 
ever  to  be  seen  or  heard  of  at  the  very  time|he  would 
most  assuredly  have  been  making  a  greatjnoise  in  the 
land  had  he  only  then  thought  of  his  wrong,  and  how 
he  was  being  plundered  by  the  actual  sale  of  his  terri- 
tory, under  his  very  nose,  to  the  abhorred  Free  State 
hoers  and  burghers  ! 

Here  follows  the  agreement  or  deed  of  sale  between 
the  two  contracting  powers  : — 

[Translation. ~] 

Annexure,  No.  16. 

DEED. 

"  *  The  undersigned,  Marthinus  Wessel  Pretorius,  State  President 

of  the  Orange  Free  State,  acting  in  this  for  and  on  behalf  of  the 

said  State : 

*  Vide  p.  25,  Annexures,  Blue  Book,  O.F.S.,  "  Minutes  of  Meeting  at 
Nooitgedacht,  1870 ;"  and  p.  67,  Capetown  Blue  Book,  No  1. 


94  DEED    OF   SALE. 

"Declares  to  have  purchased,  and  the  co-signature,  Henry  Harvey, 
landed  proprietor,  formerly  residing  at  Paljasfontein,  at  present 
at  Philippolis  as  general  agent,  and  specially  empowered  by  Adam 
Kok,  Chief  of  the  Griquas  of  the  town  and  district  Philippolis,  with 
advice  and  consent  of  his  Councillors  by  deed,  dated  15th  August, 
1861,  of  which  a  copy  is  herewith  annexed,  to  make  the  hereinafter 
mentioned  sale  : 

"  Declares  to  have  sold  all  the  open  ground  which  shall  be  found 
to  belong  to  the  Griqua  Government,  as  well  as  all  the  right  and 
title  to  the  Griqua  land  formerly  possessed  by  Adam  Kok  and  his 
people,  likeivise  that  of  the  late  Cornelius  Kok ;  and  which  possession 
and  right  were  subsequently  confirmed  by  treaty,  dated  5th  Feb- 
ruary, 1846,  between  his  Excellency  Sir  P.  Maitland,  Governor- 
General  of  the  British  possessions  in  South  Africa,  and  Captain 
Adam  Kok,  Chief  of  the  Philippolis  Griquas,  for  himself  and  for  the 
Griquas  aforementioned. 

11  By  open  ground  is  understood  all  lands  which  up  to  this  date 
have  not  become  the  property  of  separate  individuals. 

"The  purchase  amount  of  all  the  herein  before  mentioned  right  and 
title,  as  also  the  transfer  of  the  ownership  of  before  mentioned  open 
grounds,  is  fixed  at  the  sum  of  £4,000,  say  Four  Thousand  Pounds 
Sterling. 

"  His  Honour,  the  purchaser,  declares,  however,  that  the  purchase 
and  sale  must  be  ratified  by  the  Honourble  the  Yolksraad  cf  the 
Orange  Free  State,  and  will  lay  this  document  for  approval  before 
the  Eaad,  at  its  next  following  session  in  February. 

1 l  It'is  further  stipulated  that  the  purchase  amount  (the  sum  of 
Four  Thousand  Pounds  Sterling)  shall  be  paid  by  the  Government 
of  the  Orange  Free  State  in  four  instalments. 

"  The  first  instalment,  the  sum  of  One  Thousand  Pounds  Sterling, 
so  soon  as  the  purchase  shall  have  been  approved  of  by  the  Yolks- 
raad of  the  Orange  Free  State  and  transfer  shall  have  been  given ; 
and  the  following  three  years,  every  year  one  instalment,  the  like 
sum  of  One  Thousand  Pounds  Sterling  yearly,  with  the  interest  at 
six  per  cent. 

"And  the  seller  q.q.  declares  and  promises  that  neither  he,  ncr  in 
his  behalf,  nor  by  his  principal,  from  this  day,  the  Twenty-sixth 
December,|1861,  will  any  more  ground  be  given  out  or  sold  until 
the  final  approval  or  rejection  of  this  purchase  and  sale  by  the 
Honourable  the  Yolksraad  of  the  Orange  Free  State,  in  the  first 
coming  session  in  February. 


EFFECTS    OF    THE    SALE.  95 

"  In  case  the  said  Volksraad  may  not  be  willing  to  confirm  this 
purchase  and  sale,  his  Honour,  the  purchaser,  declares  that  the 
purchase  shall  be  considered  as  not  having  taken  place,  with  which 
the  seller  q.q.  agrees. 

"  It  is  further  stipulated,  with  desire  of  the  seller,  that  all  farms 
inspected  by  Captain  Adam  Kok  and  his  Commission,  and  of  which 
inspection  a  written  description  of  the  boundaries  shall  have  been 
signed  by  Adam  Kok  and  the  members  of  his  Commission,  shall 
not  again  be  inspected. 

"  Thus  done  and  passed  in  duplicate,  and  for  the  fulfilment  of 
which  we  bind  our  persons  and  property,  in  presence  of  the  under- 
signed witnesses,  at  Philippolis,  this  Twenty-siithday  of  December, 
Eighteen  Hundred  and  Sixty-one. 

"M.  W.  PEETOEIUS, 

"  State  President. 


"H.  HAEVEY,  q.q., 

"Adam  Kok,  Kaptijn. 


Witnesses  : 

E.  van  Olden. 
W.  J.  Crossley." 


The  terms  and  stipulations  of  the  above  deed  are 
clear  and  distinct.  It  is  pointed  out  that  Mr.  Harvey 
was  specially  empowered  to  make  those  sales ;  that  he 
did  so ;  and  that  the  open  grounds  of  the  late  Corne- 
lius Kok  were  "  likewise"  included.  Unless,  there- 
fore, exception  were  taken  at  the  time,  the  terms  of 
the  deed  became  law.  Both  Adam  Kok  and  the  Free 
State  Volksraadjsanctioned  and  endorsed  the  sale  as 
therein  described  ;  the  Government  of  the  Free  State 
paid  the  purchase-money,  £4,000  ;  and  Adam  Kok  re- 
ceived it,  together  with  further  large  sums,  making 
altogether/a  total  of  nearly  £8,000  for  certain  private 
lands  which  were  also  disposed  of  at  the  same  time. 
Immediately  ^afterwards  Adam  Kok  and  his  Griquas 
packed  up,  and  went  off  to  No-man's-land;  but,  with  the 
usual  cunning  of  his  race,   and  the  peculiar  aptitude 


96  .GRIQUA   DISHONESTY. 

they  have  ever  shown  to  fraudulent  dealing  in  land 
transactions,  he  seems  to  have  given  to  Waterboer  cer- 
tain territory  subsequent  to  its  sale,  and  moreover, 
after  he  had  left  the  country  and  pocketed  the  money,  to 
have  denied  that  he  had  sold  the  Campbell  lands !  At 
all  events,  although  it  was  nine  years  before  Water- 
boer distinctly  disputed  the  sales  just  described,  and 
Adam  Kok's  right  to  make  them,  it  is  quite  certain 
that,  not  long  after  them,  he  had  commenced  appro- 
priating some  of  the  sold  territory  of  the  late  Cornelius 
Kok,  and  that  Adam  Kok  simultaneously  began  to 
deny  that  he  had  ever  sold  the  Campbell  lands  ! 

After  the  departure  of  the  Philippolis  Griquas  the 
territory  of  Waterboer  remained  as  the  only  Griqua 
land,  and  it  laid  entirely  to  the  west  of  the  Yetberg  line 
and  the  original  line  of  demarcation  made  by  old  Dam 
Kok  between  Campbell  and  Griqua  Town,  the  only 
Griqua  ground  South  of  the  Vaal  being  Albania. 
Moreover,  although  indefinite  claims  may  have  been 
advanced  (according  to  the  tactics  which  had  proved 
so  successful  in  producing  the  Vetberg  line),  and 
Waterboer  may  have  encroached  upon  the  Canrpbell 
lands,  it  is  quite  certain  that,  subsequent  to  Adam 
Kok's  last  sale,  he  never,  by  any  means  or  ways  what- 
soever, advanced  a  single  claim  to  that  large  tract  of 
country  on  the  south  bank  of  the  Vaal  which  we  have 
named  South  Adamantia,  and  which  has  for  so  many 
years  been  part  and  parcel  of  the  Orange  Free  State, 
until  the  1st  September,  18G3,  when,  as  the  Free  State 
authorities  believe,  he  was  instigated  thereto  by  a  cer- 
tain Mr.  David  Arnot,  and,  in  1870,  the  British  and 
Colonial  Governments  took  up  this  claim ! 

At  the  period  to  which  we  have  arrived — 1861-2 — 


GRIQUA   LAND   CHEATING.  97 

but  little  was  known  of  the  country  north  of  the  Vaal ; 
indeed,  it  seems  very  probable  that  the  Free  State 
Government  had  but  a  vague  idea  as  to  the  nature  and 
extent  of  the  territory  to  which  it  had  become  entitled 
by  its  purchase  of  the  Campbell  grounds ;  whilst  it  is 
quite  certain  that  Mr.  Harvey  (as  representing  the 
chief,  Adam  Kok)  was  ignorant  as  to  the  very  where- 
abouts of  the  lands  he  had  been  instructed  to  sell 
beyond  the  river. 

Taking  advantage  of  this,  the  cunning  half-breeds 
began  to  simulate  an  occupation  (for  they  never  really 
occupied  even  the  original  districts  around  Griqua 
Town),  and  pretend  an  ownership  of  portions  of  the 
Campbell  lands.  Hearing  of  these  proceedings,  the 
President  of  the  Free  State  issued  a  proclamation,* 
bearing  date  September  24th,  1862,  asserting  his  pur- 
chase, "  for  and  on  behalf  of  the  Orange  Free  State 
Government,  of  all  the  right  and  title  of  the  said  Cor- 
nelius Kok  on  this  as  well  as  the  other  side  of  the 
Vaal  River ;  "  and,  warning  all  persons  neither  to 
barter,  purchase,  nor  take  possession  of  any  lands 
within  those  limits,  asserted  the  right  and  claim  of 
his  Government.      This  proclamation  appeared  in  the 

Government  Gazette  of  the  Orange  Free  State,  No.  290, 
October  8th,  1862. 

And  now,  having  pocketed  the  money,  and  being 

safely  out  of  the  country,  Adam  Kok  denied  the  sale  ! 
In    the    Friend  of  the  Free  State,  26th  December, 

1862,  appears  a  notice*]"  from  that  chief,  in  which  he 

declares  his  u  desire  to  have  it  made  known  that  the 

*  Vide  p.  27,  Annexures,  Blue  Book,  O.F.S.,  "  Minutes  of  Meeting  at 
Nooitgedacht,  1870." 

f  First  published  in  the  Colesberg  Advertise  ',  23rd  December,  1862. 

H 


98  WATERBOER   AND    CO.'s   LOGIC. 

right  sold  for  my  account  by  Mr.  Henry  Harvey  con- 
fines itself  to  the  south  bank  of  the  Vaal  River,  and  in  no 
respect  applies  to  territory  north  of  the  Vaal  River." 

This  document  is  now  produced  by  Waterboer  in 
support  of  his  present  claim  to  all  the  grounds  which 
were  bought  by  the  Free  State  in  1861,  both  north 
and  south  of  the  Vaal ! 

Evidently  the  Griqua's  mind  is  not  critical.     He  and 
his  Anglo-Saxon  colleagues  most  especially  desire  to 
make  out  a  claim  to  South  Adamantia  (where  are  the 
famous  "  dry  diggings,"  the  only  payable  places  on 
the  diamond  fields) ;  and  here  they  produce  as  evidence 
on  their  side  a  document  which,  even  supposing  its 
statements  were  true,  cuts  both  ways,  and,  for  them, 
the  worst  way  too  !     Moreover,  in  the  one  case  it  de- 
clares and  testifies  to  the  sale  of  the  lands  south  of  the 
Vaal — thus  contradicting  Waterboer's  major  claim, — 
and  in  the  other,  it  very  materially  weakens  the  minor, 
by  the  generally  admitted  maxim  that  where  falsehood 
once  appears,  falsehood  permeates  the  whole  evidence. 
But  even  taking  the  least  unfavourable  view  of  it  (1)  how 
does  the  alleged  fact  that  Adam  Kok's  sale  of  ground 
was  confined  to  the  south  of  the  Vaal  prove  for,  or  give 
"Waterboer  any  right  to  that  to  the  north?  (2)  and  if,  for 
the  sake  of  argument,  it  be  admitted  that  Adam  Kok's 
unsupported  assertion  invalidates  the  Free  State's  claim 
to  the  Campbell  lands,  how  does  it  give  Waterboer  a 
right  to  the  lands  to  the  south  of  the  Vaal  ?     The  onus 
prolandi  rests  with  the  plaintiffs' ;  negative  proof  does 
not  advance  their  case  ;  it  is  not  at  all  necessary  for 
them  to  discuss  the  merits  of  the  Free  State  constitu- 
tion, but  very  mueh  so  for  them  to  prove  their  own 
claims.     I  should  like  to  hear  Mr,  Southey  (the  Cape 


SUMMARY.  99 

Town  Colonial  Secretary,  and,  apparently,  Water- 
boer's  great  advocate  and  ally)  reply  to  the  above  two 
propositions. 

Mr.  Harvey's  power  of  attorney,  and  the  deed  of 
sale  already  quoted,  would  satisfy  any  just  mind  as  to 
the  right  and  legality  of  the  sales  effected ;  but,  as 
Waterboer  and  Co.  now  dispute  them  in  toto,  we  must, 
par  force,  produce  and  enter  into  the  analysis  and 
examination  of  the  whole  mass  of  evidence  existing 
thereon. 

Before,  however,  proceeding  to  do  so,  and  probably 
cumbering  and  muddling  .the  case  (as  I  believe  that 
sufficient  proof  has  already  been  given  to  satisfy  any 
unprejudiced  mind  that  Adam  Kok legally  sold,  and  the 
Free  State  rightly  purchased,  both  the  open  grounds 
of  that  chief  and  the  late  Cornelius  Kok),  I  will  as 
succintly  as  possible  sum  up  what  I  have  done,  or  tried 
to  do,  up  to  this  point  of  my  work,  in  the  way  of 
proving  the  real  ownership  of  Adamantia — the  tribes 
or  people  in  whom  the  territorial  right  or  sovereignty 
really  exists.  Moreover,  in  law,  by  law  civil  and 
international,  the  same  state  still  prevails ;  though,  for 
a  time,  perhaps,  brute  force  has  usurped  the  rule  and 
possession  of  the  country,  and,  in  fact,  an  interregnum 
exists  —  the  mongrel  institutions  started  by  the  Colonial 
Government  of  the  Cape  Colony,  professing  to  be  half 
Colonial,  half  Griqua,  being  illegal  in  every  sense  and 
phase,  transitory,  and  doomed  to  early  dissolution, 
when  the  rightful  Free  State  authority  should  return. 

Summary  of  Territorial  Eights  in  Adamantia. 

1.  It  has  been  conclusively  shown  that  the  people 
and  the  Government  of  the  Orange   Free   State  at 

H  2 


100  TERRITORIAL    RIGHTS. 

various  periods  purchased  or  succeeded  to  all  lauds 
south  of  the  Vaal,  north  of  the  Orange  River,  and  west 
of  Basuto-land — South  Adamantiff,  in  fact  (1)  By  suc- 
cession to  the  rights  and  territories  formally  made  over 
by  the  British  Government  at  its  abandonment  of  the 
Orange  River  Sovereignty ;  (2)  by  the  peaceful  and  un- 
disputed occupation  of  waste-lands  ;  (3)  by  the  purchase 
of  occupied  lands  from  the  supposed  owners,  Bushmen 
and  the  Bushmen  chiefs,  David  Dantzer,  Mandor, 
Kousopp,  Kogleman,  and  others ;  (4)  by  the  purchase  of 
all  south  Griqua  land  (except  Albania  only)  from  the 
people,  and  from  the  chiefs,-  Cornelius  Kok  and  Adam 
Kok. 

2.  By  the  extreme  moderation  and  generosity  of  the 
Free  State,  Waterboer  was  permitted  to  claim  the 
territory  known  as  Albania  ;  and  his  claim  was  legal- 
ized and  established  to  the  same  solely  by  the  consent 
and  action  of  the  Free  State  Government  in  the  matter 
of  its  adoption  and  recognition  of  the  Vetberg  line. 

3.  The  Orange  Free  State,  by  its  purchase  of  all 
open  ground  formerly  under  the  chief,  Cornelius  Kok, 
north  of  the  Vaal  River,  became  the  lawful  possessor 
of  all  the  Campbell  lands  except  such  portions  as  may 
be  in  the  actual  possession  and  occupation,  as  farms, 
of  Griquas — without  prejudice  to  the  claims,  if  any, 
other  tribes  or  people  may  have  as  against  the  late 
Cornelius  Kok  and  Griquas. 

4.  Such  portions  of  the  Campbell  lands  as  arc  in 
the  absolute  possession  of  Griqua  owners,  squatters,  or 
farmers,  are  exempt  from  both  Free  State  authority 
and  that  of  Waterboer  ;  the  territorial  right  or  sover- 
eignty of  such  lands  being  either  in  abeyance  or  un- 
claimed by  the  only  apparent  heir,  the  paramount 
chief  of  the  Koranas,  Massau  Rijt  Taaibosch. 


THE   KORAN  A   CLAIM.  101 

5.  Griqua  land  under  Waterboer  comprises  all  that 
extensive  tract  of  territory,  the  original  districts  of 
Griqua  Town,  north  of  the  Vaal  and  Orange  rivers, 
bounded  on  the  west  by  the  Langeberg  hills,  on  the 
north  by  the  line  separating  the  Batlaping  Kafirs  from 
the  Griquas,  and  on  the  east  by  the  original  line  made 
by  old  Dam  Kok  between  Campbell  and  Griqua  Town 
— without  prejudice  to  the  claims,  if  any,  other  tribes 
or  people  may  have  as  against  the  Griquas  them- 
selves. 

6.  The  country  east  of  the  Harts  River,  along  the 
northern  bank  of  the  Vaal,  is,  and  has  been  for  nearly 
a  century,  in  possession  of  Batlaping  Kafirs,  who 
acknowledge  only  the  Korana  Chief,  Massau,  as  their 
territorial  head,  from  whose  ancestor  they  obtained 
permission  to  settle  upon  those  lands,  although  now, 
for  the  first  time,  Waterboer  claims  them,  and  is  sup- 
ported by  the  British  and  Cape  Colony  governments. 

7.  That  the  Korana  Chief,  Massau  Rijt  Taaibosch, 
has  advanced  the  only  rightful  territorial  and  heredi- 
tary claim  to  all  Griqua  land  and  the  Campbell  lands 
— in  fact,  to  all  of  Adamantia  north  of  the  Vaal — seems 
indisputable  ;  but,  at  the  same  time,  he  does  not  seem 
to  assert  his  claim  with  any  further  intention  than  to 
preserve  inviolate  the  territory  of  Mamusa,  or  that  at 
the  present  time  actually  occupied  by  himself  and 
people,  as  well  as  by  his  allies  or  feudatories,  the 
Batlaping  Kafirs  about  the  Harts  River.  He  does  not 
seek  to  resume  the  territorial  rights  over  Griqua  land, 
which  appear  to  have  been  abandoned  by  his  prede- 
cessors for  so  long  a  period  as  over  fifty  years,  and 
which  rights,  indeed,  may  well  be  argued  to  have 
expired  simply    by  effluxion  of  time;    for  although, 


102  KORANAS   V.    WATERBOER. 

as  I  observed  in  commenting  upon  the  original  settle- 
ment of  the  Griqua  squatters  in  Chapter  II. ,  the  simple 
fact  that  non-interference  with  settlers  can  hardly  give 
them  territorial  rights  seems  plain,  yet  a  very  different 
phase  is  put  upon  the  matter  when  these  settlers  are 
not  only  left  in  undisturbed  possession  for  half  a 
century,  but  are  even  allowed  to  sell  and  alienate  large 
tracts  of  the  country  to  second  and  third  parties,  as 
much  foreigners  to  the  land  as  were  they  upon  their 
first  arrival,  without  any  protest  or  remonstrance  from 
the  original  owners.  But,  then  again,  although  this 
argument  applies  very  forcibly  to  the  former  lands  and 
acts  of  Adam  and  Cornelius  Kok,  it  cannot  be  urged 
in  favour  of  Waterboer,  for  neither  he  nor  his  people 
ever  sold  any  of  their  ground  to  whites  ;  and,  should  he 
seek  to  apply  the  argument,  it  leaves  the  Korana  Chief 
the  reply  that,  had  Waterboer  sold  or  attempted  to  sell 
any  portion  of  Griqua  land,  it  would  have  been  protested 
against  and  disallowed.  This ;  the  certainty  that  they 
have  neither  ceded  to  Waterboer  nor  lost  any  portion  of 
their  original  ground  by  conquest ;  and  the  fact  that  the 
Batlaping  squatters  of  an  even  earlier  date  than  the 
Griquas  still  acknowledge  their  territorial  supremacy, 
seem  to  prove  that  the  Koranas  have,  after  all,  the 
best  claim  to  sovereign  right  in  Griqua  land.  It  is  an 
abstruse  point,  which  I  leave  to  the  international 
lawyers,  though,  for  my  part,  I  rather  incline  to  the 
side  of  the  Koranas.  Fortunately  for  Waterboer  they 
seem  quite  willing  to  let  him  alone  if  he  will  only  leave 
them  in  peace — and  this  I  would  strongly  advise 
him  to  do  while  there  is  yet  time,  and  before  he  is 
abandoned  by  the  English  and  Colonial  Governments 
— as  I  venture  to  prophecy  he  will  be — to  the  tender 


waterboer' s  pleasant  prospects.  103 

mercies  of  both  the  Orange  Free  State  and  the  Trans- 
vaal or  South  African  Republic,  the  Kafirs  and 
Koranas  he  seeks  to  wrong  and  rob.  I  know  that,  in 
May,  1872,  just  before  I  left  the  country,  great  excite- 
ment prevailed  amongst  the  latter  tribes,  and  that 
nothing  but  the  presence  of  the  British  authorities  and 
mounted  police  at  the  diamond  fields  preserved  Water- 
boer  and  his  few  dissipated  slothful  followers  from  an 
active  demonstration  of  their  wrath.  The  Batlaping 
and  Korana  allies  could,  with  the  greatest  ease,  put 
several  thousand  stalwart,  well-armed  men  into  the  field, 
and  he  could  not  muster  as  many  hundreds.  More- 
over, the  quality  of  his  men,  in  my  opinion,  is  not  nearly 
equal  to  that  of  his  opponents — every  man  of  whom 
could  muster  with  a  good  gun,  thanks  to  the  un- 
limited supply  sold  to  natives  on  the  diamond  fields. 
Then  every  man  of  the  allied  tribes  is  expert  in  the 
use  of  the  assegai,  a  weapon  unknown  amongst  the 
Griquas,  but  not  to  be  despised  even  by  European 
troops,  as  our  Kafir  wars  have  shown,  if  once  it  comes 
to  fairly  close  quarters.  In  three  days  Waterboer  and 
his  people  would  be  exterminated,  root  and  branch. 

The  diamond  fields  will  not  last  for  ever — in  all 
probability,  but  for  few  years.  When  the  diamonds 
are  finished,  the  end  of  the  British  protectorate  will 
not  be  far  off,  and  the  most  transitory  of  populations 
— a  digging  community — will  be  on  the  way  to 
"  other  fields  and  pastures  new."  Waterboer  will 
be  left  to  the  society  of  his  loving  neighbours. 


104  waterboer's  scheme. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

Concerning  Waterboer's  and  the  Free  State's  Claims 
to  the  Campbell  Lands,  1863 — 70,  including  the 
"Meeting  at  Nooitgedacht "  of  the  Griqua  and 
Free  State  Governments. 

Waterboer's  First  definite  Claim  to  Territory  of  the  late 
Cornelius  Kok  :  One  David  Arnot,  the  Instigator. — Efforts 
at  Arbitration  by  the  Free  State,  which  Fail  through 
Waterboer's  Arrogance  and  Presumption. — The  Discovery 
of  Diamonds  in  the  Disputed  Territory  ;  it  Induces  the 
Cape  Government  to  Support  Waterboer's  Claims: — Water- 
boer  and  co's  scheme  to  cheat  the  orange  free  state 
out  of  the  Diamond  Fields,  by  Pretending  that  the  late 
Chief,  Cornelius  Kok,  who  Disposed  of  those  Lands,  was 
not  an  Independent  Chief,  but  Waterboer's  Subordinate  ! 
— The  Meeting  at  Nooitgedacht. — Analysis  of  Waterboer's 
Case  :  the  Evidence  of  T.  Sinden. — The  Meeting  Broken 
Up  by  Waterboer's  Insolent  and  Intentional  Behaviour. 

Towards  the  close  of  the  year  1863,  Waterboer  for 
the  first  time  began  to  put  forth  a  definite  claim  to  the 
former  territoiy  of  the  late  Cornelius  Kok.  This  will 
be  best  described  by  extracts  from  official  documents, 
as,  in  order  to  explain  the  cause  of  this  sudden  bold- 
ness upon  the  part  of  the  astute  Griqua,  it  becomes 
necessary  to  bring  a  charge  against  the  Mr.  Arnot 
referred  to  in  our  last  chapter. 

In  a  despatch  dated  "  Government  House,  Bloem- 


MR.    DAVID   ARNOX'S   COMPLICITY.  105 

fontein,  12tli  November,  1863,"  Mr.  J.  J.  Venter, 
Acting  President  of  the  Orange  Free  State,  writes 
to  his  Excellency  Sir  Philip  Wodehouse,  K.C.B., 
Governor-General,  &c,  of  the  Cape  Colony : — 

*"  Sir,— I  am  reluctantly  compelled  to  trouble  your  Excellency 
once  more  upon  the  subject  of  our  border  relations,  not  so  much 
with  a  view  to  enlist  your  Excellency's  sympathy  and  co-operation 
in  vindicating  our  rights  over  against  our  crafty  neighbour,  as  to 
solicit  your  Excellency's  interference  in  preventing  a  British  subject, 
influenced  by  self-interested  and  sinister  motives,  from  using  his  in- 
fluence to  promote  the  unjust  designs  and  acts  of  the  Griqua  Chief, 
Nicolas  Waterboer." 

The  despatch  then  mentions  the  sale  by  Adam  Kok 
of  his  own  lands  and  those  of  the  late  Cornelius  Kok, 
including  territory  south  of  the  Vaal,  in  the  Free 
State,  "  inhabited  by  farmers  who  hold  their  titles 
from  the  British  (Sovereignty)  Government." 

"  From  the  enclosed  copy  of  an  advertisement  appearing  in  the 
Colesberg  Advertiser,]  your  Excellency  will  perceive  that  the  chief, 
Waterboer,  has  openly  declared  his  supremacy  over  the  whole  of 
the  country  which  formerly  belonged  to  Cornelius  Kok.     .     .     . 

11  To  this  act  of  aggression  I  do  not  hesitate  to  declare  that  he  [the  Chief  J 
has  been  urged  by  a  certain  Mr.  David  Arnot,  of  Colesberg,  the  same 
individual  whom  he  announces  to  have  appointed  his  secretary,  agent, 
and  representative ;  and  I  take  the  liberty  to  request  that  your  Ex- 
cellency will  be  pleased  to  take  the  necessary  steps  to  prevent  the 
said  Arnot's  undue  interference  in  a  matter  which,  if  persisted  in, 
must  lead  to  hostilities  between  the  Griqua  nation  and  this  Govern- 
ment." 

By  comparing  dates  (the  sale  having  been  effected 
on  the  26th  December,  1861,  and  the  first  claim  by 
Waterboer  to  the  land  sold  being  dated  1st  September, 
1863),  we  find  that  he  had  taken  almost  two  years  to 

*  Vide  p.  12,  Capetown  Blue  Book,  No.  1. 

f  See  Colesberg  Advertiser,  1st  September,  1863. 


106  A   SUSPICIOUS   NOTICE  ! 

discover  how  lie  had  been  wronged, and  to  invent  or 
define  that  wrong,  and  then,  too,  under  Mr.  David 
Arnot' s  auspices  !  The  belief  in  this  latter' s  leading- 
share  in  the  conspiracy  of  Waterboer  and  others  to 
defraud  the  Orange  Free  State  of  lands  (Cornelius 
Kok's)  bought  from  the  Philippolis  Chief,  Adam  Kok, 
is  quite  universal  throughout  the  State  and  the  Cape 
Colony. 

Acting  President  Venter  issued  a  proclamation 
against  the  impudent  notice  or  advertisement  published 
by  Waterboer,  Arnot  &  Co.,  but  nothing  seems  to  have 
ensued  from  his  application  to  the  Governor  of  the 
Colony  ;  indeed,  it  seems  difficult  to  perceive  how  the 
latter  could  have  interfered  with  Waterboer's  ame- 
damnee  and  his  acts  as  agent  or  paid  employe. 

Respecting  the  notice  purporting  to  be  from  Adam 
Kok,  declaring  his  sale  of  Cornelius  Kok's  lands  to  be 
confined  to  the  south  of  the  Vaal,  quoted  in  Chapter 
V.,  its  origin  is  attributed  by  most  Free  Staters  to 
Mr.  Arnot.  And  it  is  a  significant  fact  that  upon  the 
copy  sent  by  Messrs.  Waterboer  and  Arnot,  in  1870, 
to  the  Cape  Town  Government,  when  seeking  its  aid 
to  obtain  the  diamond  fields,  appears  a  codicil  from  the 
editor  of  the  Colesberg  Advertiser  : — 

"  I  certify  the  above  a  true  copy  of  notice  as  inserted  in  the  above 
paper  for  behalf  and  account  of  the  Chief,  Adam  Kok,  now  of  No 
Man's  Land—  Colesherg,  27th  May,  1863."* 

Now,  this  certificate  proves  that  the  notice  was 
inserted  u  for  behalf  and  account  of"  (not  by)  "  the  Chief, 
Adam  Kok  ;  "—who  by  ?    By  Mr.  Arnot  ? 

How  is  it  that  the  certificate  comes  to  be  dated  at 


*  Vide  p.  14,  Capetown  Blue  Book,  No.  1. 


FREE   STATE   FORBEARANCE.  107 

Colesberg  just  about  the  time  Mr.  Arnot  left  there  to 
enter  into  Waterboer's  employment,  but  ]ust  five  months 
later  than  the  notice  itself  appeared,  that  having 
been  printed  in  the  Colesberg  Advertiser  of  the  23rd 
December,  1862  ? 

This  seems  strong,  though  circumstantial,  evidence 
in  corroboration  of  Acting  President  Venter's  charge 
against  Mr.  David  Arnot — who,  be  it  remarked,  having 
formerly  been  in  the  service  of  Adam  Kok,  would  be  a 
valuable  coadjutor  for  Waterboer,  by  reason  of  the 
knowledge  he  would  have  of  all  the  irregular  acts  and 
sales,  and,  in  fact,  of  all  the  affairs  of  both  Adam  and 
Cornelius  Kok. 

As  if  anything  more  were  required  to  illustrate  the 
inordinate,  almost  morbid,  anxiety  of  the  Orange  Free 
State  to  deal  justly  with  the  artful,  cheating  Griqua, 
the  Government  actually  condescended  to  give  heed  to 
Waterboer7 s  fraudulent  and  ambiguous  claims,  now, 
subsequent  to  the  sale  of  26th  December,  1861,  gra- 
dually and  insidiously  put  forth.  The  President  and 
Volksraad  even  went  so  far  as  to  refer  the  whole  ques- 
tion of  their  title  to  the  Campbell  lands  to  arbitration ! 
On  the  12th  February,  1864,  the  services  of  Sir  Philip 
Wodehouse,  Governor  of  the  Cape  Colony,  were  sought 
and  obtained  as  arbitrator,  Attorney-General  Porter 
kindly  giving  his  aid  by  drawing  up  the  deed  of  sub- 
mission. # 

This  mild  and  excessively  forbearing  policy  was 
pursued  even  after  a  land  commission  appointed  to 
investigate  Waterboer' s  claims  in  1863  had  very 
clearly  and  satisfactorily  proved  them  to  be  utterly 
unfounded ! 

*  Vide  p.p.  17,  136,  Capetown  Blue  Book,  No.  1. 


108  waterboer's  perversity. 

Will  it  be  credited  that  this  insignificant  leader  of  a 
couple  of  hundred  semi-savages  had  the  astounding 
audacity  to  refuse  putting  his  signature  to  the  deed  of 
submission,  and  insisted  that  the  arbitration  should  be 
extended  to  all  the  former  lands  of  the  late  Cornelius 
Kok  situate  on  the  south  side  of  the  Vaal  River  ! 

Naturally  enough,  even  tame  and  yielding  as  was  its 
policy,  the  Free  State  could  not  consent  to  arbitrate 
about  what  had  mostly  been  part  and  parcel  of  itself 
for  ten  years — ever  since  the  abandonment  of  the 
Sovereignty  in  fact.  So  the  deed  of  submission  was 
never  executed. 

As  the  report  of  the  Free  State  Commission  of  1863 
contains  very  much  the  same  sort  of  evidence  as  the 
minutes  of  the  meeting  between  Waterboer  and  his 
Councillors,  and  the  President  and  Government  of  the 
Free  State,  at  Nooitgedacht,  in  1870,  upon  the  same 
subject — the  dispute  regarding  the  Campbell  lands — 
we  will  notice  both  together ;  especially  as  the  two 
reports  are  published  in  one  form,  and  are  intimately 
related. 

*  From  a  despatch  of  President  Brand  to  Lieutenant- 
General  Hay,  dated  24th  September,  1870,  it  appears 
that : — 

"  On  the  20th  June,  1867,  the  Free  State  Yolksraad,  (or  Parlia- 
ment), resolved,  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Serfontyn,  seconded  by  Mr. 
Nauhaus  : — '  Whereas  it  has  appeared  to  the  Eaad,  from  oral  and 
written  declarations,  that  no  doubt  exists  that  the  Campbell  lands 
belong  to  the  Free  State  Government  by  virtue  of  a  deed  of  sale 
from  Mr.  Harvey,  as  the  agent  of  Captain  Adam  Kok,  the  Eaad 
resolves  to  instruct  the  State  President  to  urge  upon  Captain 
Waterboer,  if   ho  desires  to  do  so,  to  call   in   the  arbitration    of 

*  Vide  p.  17,  Capetown  Blue  Book,  No.  1. 


AKBITEATION    PROPOSED.  109 

Ins  Excellency  (the  Governor  of  the  Cape)  without  delay,  at  most 
three  or  four  months  after  he  shall  have  received  notice  of  this 
resolution.'  " 

This  seems  almost  incredible  after  previous  events, 
and,  considering  the  fact  that,  had  Waterboer  dared  to 
oppose  the  occupation  of  the  Campbell  lands  by  Free 
State  burghers,  a  very  small  commando  of  the  latter 
would  have  very  effectually  disposed  of  both  him  and 
the  question  finally  and  for  ever  ! 

"  The  Eaad  further  resolves,  in  case  Captain  Waterboer  does  not 
accept  the  arbitration  of  the  Governor,  to  empower  the  State  Pre- 
sident to  proclaim  the  before-mentioned  grounds,  and  to  appoint 
land  commissions  to  cause  the  ground  to  be  inspected,  and  then  to 
act  according  to  circumstances. 

"  And  further,  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Nauhaus,  seconded  by  Mr. 
F.  de  Yilliers  : — c  With  reference  to  the  ground  situate  on  the 
Free  State  side  of  the  Vaal  River,  the  Eaad  declares  that  all 
lands  to  which  certificates  were  issued  at  the  time  of  the  British 
Government— (Sovereignty) — belong  to  the  Orange  Free  State  ; 
and  farther,  the  Eaad  recognizes  no  other  than  the  so-called  Vet- 
berg  line.'  " 

From  a  further  statement  in  the  same  despatch  it 
appears  that  on  the  31st  March,   1870,  Waterboer 

"At  last  consented  to  restrict  the  arbitration  to  the  Campbell- 
lands,  i.e. j  the  ground  situate  to  the  north  of  the  Vaal  Eiver, 
and  the  deed  of  submission,  referring  this  question  to  the  arbitra- 
tion of  Sir  P.  E.  Wodehouse,  was  duly  signed  and  executed  by  our 
Government  and  the  Chief,  Waterboer  ;  but  owing  to  the  departure 
of  his  Excellency  from  the  Colony,  nothing  came  of  it ;  and  as  it 
is  manifest  from  the  different  resolutions  of  the  Volksraad  "  (re- 
ferring also  to  that  of  11th  February,  1864,  and  others),  "  that  it  has 
always  been  the  intention  of  the  Free  State,  in  case  the  arbitration 
of  Sir  P.  E.  Wodehouse  should  not  take  place,  to  proclaim  and 
take  possession  of  the  Campbell  grounds  as  Free  State  property, 
and  as  the  settlement  of  the  question  could  not  any  longer  be  de- 
ferred, the  Government  again  gave  public  notice  of  its  rights,  by 
proclamation  of  the  17th  May,  published  in  the  Government  Gazette 


110  ANOTHER   ACT   OF   FORBEARANCE. 

of  the  25th  May,  1870,  copy  (annexure  No.  2),  and  translation  of 
which  I  have  the  honour  to  enclose ;  but,  before  taking  any  further 
step,  our  Government  gave  the  Chief  Waterboer,  an  opportunity  to 
show  the  proofs  of  his  alleged  claim.''1 

This  constitutes  yet  another  in  the  series  of  acts  of 
forbearance  upon  the  part  of  the  Free  State  towards 
their  crafty  and  insignificant  neighbour,  so  extraordi- 
nary and  unusual  in  the  ordinary  policy  of  white 
nations  towards  uncivilized,  weak,  helpless,  and 
coloured  races,  as  to  be  really  almost  incomprehensible. 

Still,  it  was  the  last  of  a  weak  and  resultless  system. 
Mr.  J.  H.  Brand  (formerly  a  distinguished  advocate 
and  member  of  the  Colonial  House  of  Assembly)  had 
become  President  of  the  Orange  Free  State,  and,  fail- 
ing the  proof  by  Waterboer  of  the  rights  he  claimed, 
it  was  decided  to  at  once  proceed  to  survey  and  beacon 
off  the  Campbell  lands,  and  enter  into  possession. 

In  the  meanwhile  negotiations  were  progressing,  sub 
rosa,  between  Waterboer  and  the  Colonial  Government. 
Diamonds  had  been  discovered  in  the  disputed  territory 
for  a  considerable  distance  along  both  banks  of  the 
Vaal  River,  and  the  possession  of  the  country  had 
become  of  infinitely  more  importance  than  before. 
Notv,  therefore,  the  quirks  and  quibbles,  the  claims, 
protests,  assertions,  and  assumptions  of  the  petty 
Griqua  Chief  were,  for  the  first  time,  seriously  and 
eagerly  entertained  and  attended  to  by  the  British 
authorities  at  Cape  Town;*  and   there  is  but  little 

*  Vide  pp.  28,  36',  47,  57,  62—7,  73,  84—6,  &c,  &c.  Blue  Book,  "  Cor- 
respondence respecting  the  affairs  of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,"  London, 
1871,  where  the  eagerness  of  the  Cape  Government  to  adopt  Water  - 
boer's  ex  parte  oase  and  statements  is  clearly  displayed;  the  object 
being,  by  proclaiming  him  a  British  subject,  to  annex  the  diamond 
fields  to  the  Cbkmy !  All  the  correspondence,  &c,  above  referred  to 
mil  be  dealt  with  in  detail  further  on  in  this  work. 


THE   MAIN-SPRING   OF   WATERBOER's    CASE.  Ill 

doubt  that  Mr.  David  Arnot  and  Mr.  Southey,  the 
Colonial  Secretary,  came  to  a  very  good  under- 
standing. 

President  Brand's  clear,  able,  and  just-principled 
despatch  of  the  24th  September,  1870,  explaining  the 
"  opportunity  "  given  to  Waterboer  to  prove  his  claims, 
continues : — 

"  A  meeting  of  the  Executive  Council  of  the  Orange  Free  State 
Government  and  Captain  Waterboer  and  his  Council  took  place 
on  the  18th  August  (1870),  and  following  days,  on  the  banks  of 
the  Vaal  River "  [at  Nooitgedacht  farm].  "The  proofs  on  the 
part  of  the  Orange  Free  State  were  submitted  to  us  by  Mr. 
Vels,  attorney,  and  on  the  part  of  the  chief,  Waterboer,  by  his 
agents,  Messrs.  D.  Arnot  and  Grant,  attorney.  After  leading  some 
evidence,  Mr.  Grant  proposed  to  call  the  Councillors  of  Waterboer,  who 
had  been  present  during  the  ivhole  of  the  proceedings,  as  witnesses  to 
prove  that  Captain  Cornelius  Kok  had  never  been  an  independent 
Chief."  .... 

This  is  an  important  point  to  notice.  The  state- 
ment was  then  made,  for  the  first  time,  and  it  forms  the 
foundation — the  very  life  and  soul — of  Waterboer's 
case  :  disprove  it,  and  his  entire  claim  is  destroyed. 
But  prove  that  Cornelius  Kok  were  not  an  independent 
chief,  then  (very  indirectly  though)  Waterboer  has  the 
opportunity  to  assert  a  claim  thus  : — "  Cornelius  Kok 
had  no  legal  right  to  alienate  and  dispose  of  land  to 
the  Free  State,  or  any  one  else  ;  therefore  Adam  Kok 
could  not  have  inherited  such  lands  from  him,  nor, 
consequently,  have  had  any  right  to  sell  them ;  whilst 
to  me,  as  the  only  remaining  Griqua  chief,  they  should 
revert."  But  then,  unfortunately  for  Waterboer's  (or 
rather,  Mr.  Arnot' s)  ingenious  argument,  Cornelius 
Kok  was    an  independent  chief,  Adam   Kok  was  his 


112  waterboer's  claim. 

rightful  successor,  and  did,  at  his  own  departure  to 
No  Man's  Land,  sell  all  remaining  open  ground  of  his 
late  uncle  to  the  Orange  Free  State — facts  we  have 
overwhelming  evidence  to  prove,  and,  be  it  carefully 
observed,  not  one  of  which  was  ever  either  disputed 
or  protested  against  by  Waterboer  at  the  time,  nor,  as 
we  have  before  stated,  until  long  after !  As  this  state- 
ment constituted  Waterboer' s  entire  claim  (as  it  does  to 
this  day),  and  as  all  the  evidence  he  produced  at  the 
meeting  at  Nooitgedacht  (and  ever  subsequently)  was 
solely  in  support  of  it,  we  may  at  once  proceed  to 
analyze  and  examine  the  latter. 

MEETING  AT  NOOITGEDACHT. 

The  results  of  this  meeting  were  published  by 
authority  of  the  Orange  Free  State  Government  in 
Blue  Book  form,  entitled : — 

"Minutes  of  a  Meeting  of  the  Executive  Council  of  the  Orange  Free 
State,  held  at  Nooitgedacht,  on  the  Vaal  River,  on  the  \%th  August f 
1870,  and  following  dags,  for  the  purpose  of  giving  Cap  tain  N.  Waterboer 
an  opportunitg  of  submitting  his  proof  of  claim  to  the  Campbell  grounds."* 

The  veracity  of  this  work  has  never  been  questioned, 
and  it  has  been  quoted  in  cxtenso  by  the  Cape  Town 
Blue  Book,  to  which  I  have  already  made  frequent 
reference  as  "  No  1,  1871."  The  extracts,  evidence, 
and  quotations  upon  which  the  following  review  is 
based  are  taken  from  its  pages. 


*  Vide  pp.  28  to  94,  Capetown  Blue  Book,  "  Correspondence  between 
H.M.  High  Commissioner  and  the  President  of  the  Orange  Free 
State,  1871,"  for  a  full  copy  of  this  book. 


ANALYSIS    OF   WATERBOER's    CASE.  113 

Waterboer  being  the  appellant,  or  plaintiff,  we  will 
first  proceed  to  examine  the  oral  evidence  submitted 
on  his  side. 

1.  We  must  premise  that  Waterboer' s  evidence  was 
adduced  in  support  of  two  arguments :  1st.  That 
Cornelius  Kok  was  not  an  independent  chief,  but 
Waterboer's  under  officer  or  subordinate.  2nd.  That  the 
territory  known  as  his — the  Campbell  grounds — really 
belonged  to  Waterboer,  as  well  as  such  part  of  South 
Adamantia  as  fell  within  a  line  from  Ramah  on  the 
Orange,  to  Platberg  on  the  Vaal  Eiver. 

Analysis  of  Waterboer's  Case. 

On  the  sixth  day  of  the  meeting,  after  the  evidence 
on  the  Free  State  side  had  been  produced,  and  Messrs. 
D.  Arnot  and  Grant,  on  behalf  of  Waterboer,  had 
handed  in  a  number  of  documents  (which  we  will 
examine  later),  "Mr.  Grant  wished  to  call  Nicolas 
Kruger,  a  native  councillor  of  Waterboer." 

"Mr.  Vels  "  (attorney  for  the  Free  State)  "objects 
to  the  Councillors  of  Captain  Waterboer  being  called 
as  witnesses "  (they  having  been  present  during  the 
whole  of  the  evidence,  and  being  there  as  jury  or  judges, 
not  as  witnesses  in  their  own  cause.) 

The  question  is  left  till  to-morrow  for  decision,  and 
Mr.  Grant  proceeds  to  call  other  witnesses. 

Thomas  Sinden,  sworn,  states : — 

"  I  reside  at  Hope  Town.  .  .  .  I  have  long  known  this  side 
of  the  Orange  Eiver.  .  .  .  In  1853  I  resided  with  Hans  Eabie 
at  Doornlaagte,  in  the  Orange  Free  State.     .     .     .     While  I  was 

I 


114  t.  sinden's  evidence. 

•with  Kabie  in  1854,  I  purchased  the  Witputs  "  (farm)  "from  cripple 
Jan  Pienaar,  a  Griqua,  in  Adam  Kok's  territory.  Adam  Kok  wrote 
to  me  that  there  was  a  dispute  about  the  ground.     .     .  I  then 

met  Adam  Kok  ;  he  told  me  then  that  the  largest  portion  of  it  was 
in  Captain  Waterhoer's  territory.  I  then  disputed  it,  and  said, 
*  That  is  of  Cornelius  Kok.  Ilendrik  du  Toit  told  me  that  it  was  in 
Cornelius  Kok's  ground.'  He  asked  me,  *  "Whether  I  wanted  to  know 
better  than  he?'  Cornelius  Kok  is  his  uncle,  and  that  he  had 
forfeited  ( 1 )  all  right  by  his  tumult  and  bloodshed.  He  had  no  ground. 
He  said  it  belongs  to  Waterboer ;  there  is  no  other  chief  than 
Waterboer  who  has  ground.  He  further  said,  Cornelius  Kok  resided 
at  Campbell  as  a  subject  of  Waterboer  (2).  .  .  .  About  a  month 
after  this  I  rode  to  Cornelius  Kok  at  Titiespan  .  .  .  and  he  told 
me  be  had  no  ground  of  his  own,  the  ground  belonged  to  Waterboer.  -  . 
.  .  He  further  said  that  Waterboer  employed  him  as  a  magistrate  to 
decide  petty  cases."     .     .     .     (3) 

After  a  little  more  desultory  evidence,  this  witness 
then  stated  :  "  It  was  then  all  lost  "  (his  money  I  pre- 
sume), "  and  I  went  away." 


Notes  to  above  Deposition: — 

(1.)  If  Cornelius  Kok  ever  "  forfeited"  territorial  rights,  it  is 
admitted  that  he  once  had  such,  although  this  Waterboer  illogically 
denies ;  for  he  could  not  lose  that  which  he  never  possessed.  No- 
where else  can  any  such  statement  be  met  with,  moreover. 

(2.)  As  to  whether  Cornelius  Kok  was  an  independent  chief,  or  a 
subject  of  Waterboer' s,  we  shall  soon  prove  by  the  mass  of  evidence 
upon  the  former  side,  in  addition  to  such  information  as  we  have 
already  dealt  with. 

(3.)  Apropos  of  this  dodge  by  which  Mr.  Sinden  seems  to  have 
been  cheated,  we  cannot  do  better  than  quote  the  following  state- 
ment in  Attorney-General  Porter's  able  Memorandum  so  freely 
referred  to  in  Chapters  II.,  III.,  and  IY. 

"  If  a  movement  were  made  to  arrest  a  boer  who  had  flogged  a 
native  or  to  dispossess  a  boer  of  a  farm  occupied  under  a  sale  which 
the   Griquas  cunningly  disputed  as  having  been  made  by  an  individual 


DAVID  arnot's  impertinence.  115 

without  the  concurrence  of  their  Raad,  the  farmers  drew  together 
into  their  laagers  and  prepared  for  war,  while  the  threatened  chief 
hurried  messenger  after  messenger  into  the  Colony,  imploring 
ammunition  and  military  aid."*  This,  and  many  another  case,  and 
the  disputed  sale  of  the  Campbell  lands,  are  all  upon  a  par." 

Will  it  be  believed  that  Thomas  Sinden  was  the 
only  witness  produced  by  Waterboer  ? 

Afterwards  the  Free  State  Government  even  went  so 
far  as  to  sanction  the  production  of  Waterboer' s  own 
Councillors  as  witnesses  (though  really  they  should 
have  been  disqualified,  as  before  stated). 

But  Messrs.  Waterboer,  Arnot,  &  Co.  now  backed 
out  of  the  conference  altogether ! 

We  will  show  how,  before  proceeding  with  the  evi- 
dence in  favour  of  the  Free  State,  contrary  to  Mr. 
Sinden' s  unsupported  testimony. 

Early  on  the  morning  of  the  seventh  day  of  the 
meeting,  President  Brand  received  the  following  irre- 
levant and  impertinent  letter  from  Mr.  David  Arnot : 

"  NOOITGEDACHT  (BlOEM's), 

"August  24,  1870. 

"Sir, — I  am  authorized  by  the  Chief,  Nicolas  Waterboer,  with 
the  advice  and  consent  of  his  Eaad,  to  put  to  you,  as  representing 
the  Government  of  the  Orange  Free  State,  the  following  substantive 
question,  which  you  will  be  pleased  to  answer  distinctly  and  pointedly  !  " 
(Why,  the  Prime  Minister  of  Great  Britain  would  not  have  written 
as  uncivilly  as  this  unknown  agent  of  the  leader  of  a  couple  of 
hundred  semi-savages  !)     "  The  question  is  this  : — 

"  '  In  the  event  of  the  present  meeting,  which  professes  to  have 
for  its  immediate  object  the  ascertaining  of  the  grounds  on  which 
the  Chief  Waterboer  claims  the  country  (north  of  the  Vaal  Elver)  as 
an  integral  portion  of  the   territory  belonging   to   the  nations  of 


Vide  p.  9,  Blue  Book,  "  Orange  River  Correspondence,  1851—4. 

i  2 


116  AKNOT'S   LETTEB    REVIEWED. 

Griqua-land  West  {I)  being  proceeded  with,  and  brought  to  a  close 

(the  evidence  of  the  members  of  the  Raad  being  admitted  J,  will  the 
Government  of  the  Orange  Free  State  promise  and  undertake  to 
submit  the  matters  and  boundaries  in  dispute  south  of  that  river  (2)  to 
the  arbitration  and  final  decision  of  the  successor  of  Sir  P.  E.Wode- 
house,  in  his  capacity  as  Governor  of  the  Cape  Colony  and  High 
Commissioner,  and  to  proceed  with  such  arbitration  as  speedily  as 
the  said  Governor,  &c.,  can  make  it  convenient,  after  his  arrival,  to 
enter  upon  the  work. 

"  The  Chief  and   Council  will  feel  obliged  by  an  early  reply. 
(Signed)  "  David  Arnot, 

"  Griqua  Representative. 
"His  Honour  J.  H.  Brand,  Esq. 

u President  of  the  Orange  Free  State." 

The  above  epistle  is  evidently  the  invention  of 
Messrs.  Arnot  and  Grant,  and  not  of  the  uneducated 
Griqua.  Mr.  Arnot  may  be  here  credited  with  the 
invention  of  the  term  (Note  1)  "  Griqua  land  West." 
It  would  be  interesting  to  know  what  connection  or 
understanding  at  this  time  existed  between  the  firm 
of  Waterboer,  Arnot,  &  Co.  and  Mr.  Southey,  the 
Colonial  Secretary  at  Capetown. 

There  is  but  little  doubt  that  a  deep-laid  scheme 
was  already  in  progress.  Mr.  A  mot's  confident  tone 
seems  significant ;  especially  in  conjunction  with  the 
juggling  we  noticed  in  connection  with  that  manifesto 
purporting  to  proceed  from  Adam  Kok ,  that  appeared 
in  the  Colesberg  Advertiser.  Then  the  Governor,  and 
High  Commissioner  to  arrange  the  diamond  field 
question  upon  the  part  of  the  Cape  Colony,  was  on 
his  voyage  out ;  and  he  at  once  fell  into  the  views 
and  interests  of  these  gentry  uj)on  his  arrival ;  the 
Colonial  Government  and  Waterboer  and  Arnot  were 
already  in  correspondence  ;  the  tempting  diamonds, 


waterboer's  rudeness.  117 

meanwhile,  being  obtained  by  those  detested  boers  and 
Free  Staters,  to  whom,  however,  they  rightly  belonged. 

[Note  2]  As  it  had  all  along  been  well  known  that 
the  Government  of  the  Orange  Free  State  never 
admitted  any  question  or  dispute  as  to  its  undoubted 
right  to  all  the  former  territory  of  the  late  Cornelius 
Kok,  south  of  the  Vaal  (which,  as  we  have  seen,  even 
the  professed  notice  from  Adam  Kok  fully  admitted), 
Mr.  Arnot's  impudent  "  question  "  can  have  had  but 
one  object,  viz.,  to  break  off  the  conference.  In  this 
it  of  course  succeeded. 

President  Brand  (as  the  head  of  a  populous  and 
thriving  state)  must  have  exercised  no  little  control 
over  his  feelings  to  reply  to  the  precious  questioning 
at  all,  and  deserves  no  little  credit  for  the  very  tem- 
perate and  civil  manner  in  which  he  did  so.  In  his 
answer,  of  the  same  date,  he  points  out  facts  of  which 
his   correspondents    were    already  well  aware,    viz., 

"  Our  object  is  to  investigate  the  question  in  dispute  respecting 
the  Campbell  grounds.  ...  I  must  again  inform  you  that  the 
Honourable  the  Volksraad  has  decided  not  to  submit  the  question 
of  the  Campbell  grounds  (that  is,  the  grounds  to  the  north  of  the 
Yaal  River),  any  further  to  arbitration ;  and  with  respect  to  the 
lands  to  the  south  of  that  river,  to  recognise  no  other  than  the 
Vetberg  line,  including  the  (British)  land-certificate  farms." 

After  the  exchange  of  two  more  letters  upon  the 
same  subject,  and  containing  no  especial  point  of  in- 
terest, the  correspondence  ceased,  and  the  two  parties 
met  in  the  afternoon.  But  now  Waterboer's  Council- 
lors refused  to  give  evidence,  although  the  Free  State 
officials  had  so  very  generously  agreed  to  receive  such. 
So  the  meeting  naturally  broke  up,  and  on  the  follow- 


118  waterboer's  rudeness. 

ing  morning,  the  25th  of  August,  Waterboer  and  his 
companions  abruptly  inspanned  their  waggons  and 
treked  off,  without  coming  to  any  understanding,  and 
without  assigning  any  reason  for  the  rude,  uncourteous 
proceeding  by  which  they  so  unceremoniously  broke 
off  the  conference. 


THE  FREE  STATE  CASE.  119 


CHAPTER  VII. 

Analysis  of  the  Oral  Evidence  Adduced  at  the 
Meeting  at  Nooitgedacht,  by  the  Government  of 
the  Orange  Free  State  : — 


Evidence  of  (1)  Mr.  A.  II.  Bain,  of  Bainsvley,  near  Bloem- 
fontein,  Affirming  the  late  Captain  Cornelius  Kok  to  have 
been  Sole  and  Independent  Chief  of  Campbell  and  its 
Grounds. — Evidence  of  (2)  Mr.  H.  Nicholson;  (3)  Mr.  W. 
0.  Corner,  former  Secretary  to  the  Chief,  Adam  Kok,  and 
(4)  Petrus  Goojiman,  Clerk  to  ditto;  (5)  Mr.  H.  Harvey, 
of  Philippolis,  Captain  A.  Kok's  former  Agent  ;  (6)  Mr.  J. 
Bartlett,  former  Provisional  Captain  of  Campbell  ;  (7) 
Jan  Jansen;  (8)  Provisional  Captain  Dirk  Kok,  of  Camp- 
bell ;  (9)  Abram  Kok,  Brother  to  the  late  Captain  Dam 
Kok;  (10)  Arte  Samuels,  former  Councillor  of  Cornelius 
Kok;  (11)  H.  Hendrtkse,  formerly  Griqua  Government 
Secretary  ;  (12)  and,  lastly,  a  Further  Deposition  of  Mr. 
W.  0.  Corner,  Proving  (a)  the  Line  Between  Campbell 
and  Griqua  Town,  (b)  Captain  Cornelius  Kok's  Independ- 
ence, and  (c)  the  Inheritance  of  his  Territory  by  Cap- 
tain Adam  Kok,  (d)  the  Sale  of  those  Grounds  to  the 
Orange  Free  State,  (e)  and  the  Making  of  the  Yetberg 
Line,  &c. 

Analysis  of  the  Orange  Free  State  Case. 

We  will  now  proceed  to  examine  the  oral  evidence 
given  at  Nooitgedacht  (hostile  to  the  solitary  Mr. 
Sinden's,  adduced  to  prove  that  Cornelius  Kok  was 


120  MR.  A.  ir.  bain's  evidence. 

not  an  independent  chief)  by  witnesses  produced  by 
the  Orange  Free  State  officers. 

Upon  the  first  day  of  the  meeting,  Mr.  Bain,  of 
Bainsvley,  an  English  gentleman  well  known  in  the 
Colony  (and  out  of  it  as  having  entertained  Prince 
Alfred,  and  conducted  the  great  native  hunt  at 
Bainsvley  for  his  Royal  Highnesses  behoof  when 
visiting  that  part  of  the  world  some  few  years  ago), 

was  called  bv  Mr.  Vels. 

»i 

1.  Andrew  Hudson  Bain,  sworn: — 

11 .  .  .  I  knew  Cornelius  Kok  well.  He  was*  there  (at  Campbell) 
as  Suzerain.  I£e  was  Chief  and  Captain  of  Campbell.  .  .  .  Cornelius 
Kok  showed  me  his  staff  of  office,  given  him  by  Lord  Caledon,  by 
which  he  was  recognized  as  chief.  About  this  time  Andries  Water- 
boer  tried  to  send  his  people  from  Griqua  Town  to  Campbell,  to 
endeavour  to  drive  away  the  people  from  there.  Jan  Bloem  at  that 
time  owed  vassalage  to  Cornelius  Kok,  who  called  upon  him  for 
assistance,  and  Jan  Bloem  assisted  him  against  Waterboer ;  f  this 
kept  Waterboer  back,  and  Adam  Kok  was  then  called  in  as 
arbitrator  ...  As  long  as  I  can  recollect,  Cornelius  Kok  was  chief 
of  Campbell.  He  was  recognized  by  Barends,  the  Bloems,  and  all 
the  Koranas,  as  chief— paramount  Chief  of  Campbell.  ..." 

2.  Harry  Nicholson,  sworn  : — 

"I  live  at  Draaihoek,  at  the  junction  of  Eiet  and  Vaal  rivers,  at 
the  Campbell,  or  north  side  of  Vaal  River  ...  I  have  two  farms 
on  the  north  side  of  Vaal  River.  One  I  bought  of  Jacob  Waterboer, 
and  the  other  from  Abraham  Kok,  brother  of  the  deceased  Cornelius 
Kok.  They  had  these  two  farms  on  a  request  (lease,  or  title 
deed)  of  Cornelius  Kok,  Captain  of  Campbell.  I  have  resided  on 
those  farms  since  I  bought  them  in  1861,  before  Captain  Adam  Kok 
left  for  No  Man's  Land. 


*  Vide  p.  5,  Blue  Book,  O.F.S.  "  Minutes  of  Meeting  at  Nooitge- 
dacht,  1870,"  for  report  of  this  witness's  evidence,  as  well  as  those- 
following. 

f  This  statement  proves  that  Cornelius  Kok  waged  war  against  Water- 
boer as  au  independent  chief. 


ME.    II.    NICHOLSON'S   EVIDENCE.  121 

' '  I  was  well  acquainted  with  Cornelius  Kok  .  .  .  He  was  an  inde- 
pendent captain,  and  as  far  as  I  know  not  subject  either  to  Captain  A. 
Kok  or  Captain  Waterboer.  1  always  heard  from  Cornelius  Kok,  and 
also  from  his  people,  that  he  was  an  independent  captain.  Cornelius  Kok 
had  his  own  council,  just  as  the  other  captains,  Waterboer  and  Adam 
Kok.  .  .  . 

"  I  always  heard  from  the  chief  C.  Kok  and  his  people  that  there 
was  a  line  between  Griqua  Town  and  Campbell.  As  far  as  I  know, 
Cornelius  Kok  always  ruled  as  far  as  that  line  went,  and  Waterboer 
on  the  other  side.  I  believe  I  know  something  of  that  line,  because 
I  often  heard  from  Cornelius  Kok  and  his  people  how  the  line  went, 
and  know  it  as  the  history  of  the  country." 

The  line  between  Campbell  and  Griqua  Town. 

The  witness  then  described  this  line,  and  it  proved 
to  be  exactly  the  same  as  that  shown  in  diagram  A, 
and  fully  denned  at  the  end  of  Chapter  II.,  by  the 
testimony  of  Hendrik  Hendrikse,  Adam  Kok's  former 
Government  Secretary. 

The  above  evidence  is  very  distinct  as  to  the  fact 
that  Cornelius  Kok  was  an  independent  chief. 

The  following  testimony  is  equally  clear  as  to  the 
other  fact,  that  Adam  Kok  did  legally  inherit  the 
hereditary  and  territorial  rights  of  Cornelius  Kok. 

"I  know  that  Captain  Adam  Kok  was  successor  of  Cornelius  Kok 
at  Campbell.  I  was  present  at  Campbell,  I  believe,  in  1856  or  1857. 
We  were  all  summoned  from  the  district  of  Campbell.  Adam  Kok 
was  present.  Cornelius  Kok  then  informed  us  that  it  was  his 
desire,  with  the  consent  of  his  people,  to  lay  down  his  office.  His 
reason  for  resigning  was  that  he  had  become  old  and  weak.  .  .  .  Adam 
Kok  then  asked  the  people  of  Campbell  whether  it  was  with  their 
consent.  All  answered  'Yes.'  He  repeated  the  question  three  times, 
and  the  answer  was  the  same.  .  .  .  Adam  Kok  then  asked  for  the 
cane.  It  was  brought  and  handed  over  by  Cornelius  Kok  in  the 
presence  of  his  people  to  Adam  Kok,  and  at  the  same  time  another 
cane  was  given,  belonging  to  Barend  Barendse,  before  my  time  a 
captain  of  Boetchap." 


122  MB.    H.    NICHOLSON'S    EVIDENCE. 

(These  canes  were  the  insignia  of  chieftainship,  and 
had  been  presented  to  the  chiefs  by  Lord  Caledon,  in 
recognition  of  their  independent  rank.  Waterboer 
carefully  avoids  explaining  the  existence  of  these 
optical  proofs  of  Cornelius  Kok's  independent  posi- 
tion). 

' '  After  these  two  canes  had  been  given  to  Adam  Kok  he  told  the 
people  to  elect  a  Provisional  Captain  for  themselves.  They  could 
not  come  to  a  choice,  and  then  Adam  Kok  himself  appointed  one. 
In  the  presence  of  his  people  he 'appointed  John  Bartlett." 

Where,  then,  was  Waterboer,  to  allow  this  wholesale 
infringement  of  his  prerogative  ?  How  is  it  that 
ever  after  he  submitted  to  the  presence  and  acts  of  Jan 
Bartlett  ? — that  he  never  even  protested  against  the 
same,  if  Cornelius  Kok  was  his  own  nominee  and 
subordinate  ? 

The  following  statement  proves  that  Waterboer 
never  owned  or  possessed  any  part  of  the  Campbell 
grounds ;  that,  in  fact,  he  tried  to  obtain  part  of  them 
in  the  year  1861,  but  entirely  failed  : — 

11 1  was  present  at  a  meeting  at  Yetberg  in  1861,  between  A.  Kok 
and  Waterboer,  when  Adam  Kok  was  about  leaving  the  country 
.  .  .  Captain  Waterboer  wished  to  make  an  exchange  with  Captain 
A.  Kok.  The  people  of  Campbell  were  present.  .,  .  .  Adam  Kok 
then  asked  Waterboer  to  point  out  the  land  he  wished  to  give  in 
exchange  for  Campbell.  Captain  Waterboer  then  described  the 
ground  .  .  .  which  A.  Kok  refused,  because  it  was  dry  ground. 
Adam  Kok  then  gave  leave  to  his  people  to  sell  their  lands  to  whom 
they  liked.  .  .  .  Some  asked  for  a  certificate  for  that  purpose,  which 
was  given  and  granted  by  Adam  Kok.  The  same  day  Davies 
bought  an  erf"  (measure  of  land)  "at  Campbell  from  Jan 
Stiglingh. 

"  Waterboer  did  not,  as  far  as  I  am  aware,  offer  to  purchase  the 
Campbell  lands.     I  only  know  that  he  offered  to  exchange. 


MR.   w.  o.  corner's  evidence.  123 

"By  virtue  of  the  request  (title  deed)  of  Cornelius  Kok,  I  still 
occupy  the  two  places  which  I  purchased.  ..." 

The  striking  way  in  which  the  evidence  of  this  and 
the  succeeding  witnesses  agrees  with  the  declarations 
of  Hendrik  Hendrikse  (though  the  latter  was  given  at 
a  widely  different  time),  already  quoted  as  history  in 
Chapters  II.,  IV.,  and  V.,  cannot  fail  to  be  noticed. 

3.    William  Ogilvie  Corner,  sworn: — 

"  I  live  at  Eoodepan,  inJacobsdal  (district),  Orange  Free  State. 
1  am  son-in-law  of  Cornelius  Kok,  of  Campbell.  I  knew  him  since 
1839.  .  .  .  He  was  already  Chief  of  Campbell,  and  since  that  time 
until  his  resignation  in  favour  of  Captain  Adam  Kok.  Cornelius 
Kok  was  an  independent  chief ;  he  had  a  council,  field-cornets  and  every- 
thing. He  condemned  people  to  death  with  his  own  council,  alone,  with- 
out any  other  council.  He  was  recognized  by  the  British  Govern- 
ment as  Chief.  I  have  seen  the  letter  from  the  Governor  who 
recognized  him.  The  letter  now  shown  me  (No.  1)  is  the  letter. 
He  had  a  staff  of  office,  which  he  received  from  Lord  Caledon.  On 
that  cane  was  the  inscription,  'Lord  Caledon,  Governor  of  the  Cape, 
to  Cornelius  Kok,  Captain  of  Campbell.' 

"I  am  acquainted  with  the  lines  between  Griqua  Town  and  Camp- 
bell, and  the  ground  between  Adam  Kok  and  Cornelius  Kok,  as 
written  by  myself  from  the  dictation  of  Cornelius  Kok  and  his  Raad." 

The  line  between  Griqua  Town  and  Campbell  was 
as  follows : — 

"  A  certain  ford  (drift)  on  Vaal  Eiver  called  Garries  "  (and  also 
Koukonop)  ;  "  from  there  to  Withius  ;  from  there  to  half  way  between 
Griqua  Town  and  Campbell  to  a  Karreeboom ;  from  there  with  a 
certain  '  bult '  (ridge)  a  vein  which  goes  to  the  eastward  of  Kogelbeen. 
(The  document  written  by  me  is  now  in  possession  of  Adam  Kok.") 

The  line  thus  described  is  exactly  similar  to  that 
given  by  the  previous  witness,  as  well  as  by  Hendrik 
Hendrikse,  which  is  fully  shown  in  diagram  A,  and 
denned  at  the  end  of  Chapter  II. 

Mr.    Corner    corroborates   the  construction  of    the 


124:  MB.  w.  o.  corner's  evidence. 

"  Vetberg  line,"  and  Waterboer' s  undeniable  assent 
thereto,  by  the  following  statement: — 

"I  know  that,  at  the  request  of  the  Free  State,  a  line  was  made 
by  Captain  Adam  Kok,  in  1855,  between  Captain  Waterboer  and 
Cornelius  Kok.  /  was  present  as  clerk  of  Adam  Kok.  Captain 
Waterloer  was  present.  .  .  Captain  Jan  Bloem  was  also  there,  and 
Captain  A.  Kok,  of  Philippolis,  and  Captain  C.  Kok,  of  Campbell. 
...  I  know  that  Captain  Waterboer  and  Captain  Cornelius  Kok 
then  consented  to  leave  the  decision  of  the  line  to  Captain  A.  Kok, 
who  then  made  the  line.  The  document  No.  19  "  (of  which  a  copy 
is  given,  with  a  small  map  or  plan,  in  Chapter  IV)  "  is  the  line  as 
decided  by  him.  The  document  is  in  the  handwriting  of  Adam 
Kok,  and  signed  by  him  ;  the  names  of  Petrus  Pienaar  and  Stoffel 
Visagie  are  written  by  me.  Captain  Waterloer  and  Captain  Cornelius 
Kok  were  satisfied  with  the  decision" 

(And  well  they  might  be,  considering,  as  I  have 
previously  pointed  out,  that  neither  of  them  really  had 
a  shadow  of  right  to  an  inch  of  ground  south  of  the 
Vaal !) 

"  Captain  Cornelius  Kok  has  always  governed  as  independent  chief 
over  the  ground  mentioned  by  me  as  belonging  to  him." 

The  witness  then  testifies  as  to  that  chief's  resigna- 
tion in  favour  of  his  nephew,  Adam  Kok : — 

"  I  know  that  Cornelius  Kok  laid  down  his  government  in  1857. 
...  I  saw  the  document  by  which  the  government  was  transferred 
to  Adam  Kok,  at  Philippolis,  in  1857.  I  was  then  acting  magistrate 
at  Philippolis.  .  .  Adam  Kok  had  a  law  book,  and  he  directed  me  to 
paste  it  in  the  law  book.  .  .  Contents  as  follows  : — '  That  as  he, 
C.  Kok,  was  old  in  years,  he  made  over  his  government  to  A.  Kok, 
as  heir  of  his  people  and  country.'  " 

"I  heard  from  Captain  Adam  Kok  that  Waterboer  and  Jantje 
Mothibi  ivere  present  at  the  resignation. 

"I  know  that  Captain  Adam  Kok  assumed  the  government  of 
Campbell.  I  was  present  when  he  appointed  John  Bartlett  as  Pro- 
visional Captain ;  and  I,  as  clerk  of  Adam  Kok ,  drew  up  several  documents 
and  regulations  for  the  government  of  Campbell." 


MR.  w.  o.  corner's  evidence.  125 

What,  I  should  like  to  know,  have  Messrs.  Waterboer, 
Arnot  &  Co.  to  say  to  that  ?  But  the  fact  is  that  they 
have  never  noticed  all  this  indisputable  mass  of  evi- 
dence, much  less  attempted  to  refute  even  a  single 
word  of  it !  The  Colonial  Government,  the  late 
Lieut. -Governor,  and  the  present  Governor  of  the  Cape 
Colony,  all  backers  of  Waterboer,  very  coolly  and  com- 
fortably pass  by  its  formidable  and  unassailable  array 
b)r  the  mere  assertion  that  it  is  all  untrue  !  But  I  have 
yet  to  see  a  solitary  point  proved  by  them  in  refutation 
of  a  single  witness's  veracity  and  general  good  cha- 
racter and  reputation. 

"  I  know  that  Captain  Adam  Kok,  as  Captain  of  Campbell,  had  a 
meeting  with  Captain  Waterboer,  first  at  Griqua  Town,  and  after- 
wards at  Yetberg,  in  1861." 

(This  refers  to  the  futile  effort  at  exchanging  part  of 
Campbell  for  part  of  Albania.) 

"  At  Yetberg  they  could  not  agree,  on  account  of  a  certain  dam, 
called  '  Griqua  dam.'  Adam  Kok  said,  '  I  give  '  "  (or  rather,  offer) 
"  '  you  a  land  full  of  fountains,  and  if  you  do  not  give  me  this  dam  I 
do  not  exchange.1  He  called  me  immediately,  and  said,  *  Write  cer- 
tificates for  the  people  now  present,  so  that  they  can  sell  their  farms 
at  Campbell  to  whom  they  like.'  He  commenced  to  inspan,  and  I 
then  had  Henry  Mellish  (who  did  not  understand  Dutch)  with  me, 
and  he  said,  '  Give  H.  Mellish  a  copy  form  of  the  certificates  to 
assist  me  in  writing ; '  which  I  did." 

An  adjournment  of  the  meeting  here  took  place  at 
noon,  August  19th. 

Resumed  at  Two  o'clock. 

William  Ogilvie  Corner  further  examined  by  Mr.  At- 
torney Vels : — 

"...  Captain  Waterboer  has  never,  as  far  as  I  know,  assumed  any 
authority  over  the  Campbell  grounds  en  this  or  the  other  side  of  the 
Vaal  River y 


126  p.  goojiman's  evidence, 

11 1  believe  that  Captain  Waterboer  has  respected  the  *  Vetberg  line1 
as  approved  by  Captain  Adam  Kok,  because  he  never  made,  as  far  as 
I  am  aware,  any  objections  against  it.11 

Saturday,  20  th  August. 

Meeting  re-opened  at  9.30  a.m.  Attorney  Vels 
calls : — 

4.  Petrus  Goojinian,  sworn: — 

"  I  formerly  lived  in  Philippolis,  and  I  went  in  1855  to  Camp- 
bell. /  knew  Cornelius  Kok  as  Chief  of  Campbell,  and  I  have  served 
under  him  and  his  successor,  Adam  Kok,  as  burgher,  seven  years. 
Captain  Cornelius  Kok  had  councillors,  just  as  the  other  Captains. 
As  far  as  I  know,  he  was  chief  of  his  people,  independent  of  other 
Captains. 

1  i  According  to  what  I  heard  from  the  old  residents,  there  was 
a  line  (boundary)  between  Captain  Waterboer  and  Cornelius 
Kok.  .  .  . 

"A  meeting  was  then  held  in  Campbell.  Cornelius  Kok  said 
that  he  was  old  and  weak,  and  had  no  heir,  and  that  the  nearest 
heir  was  Adam  Kok;  and  he  then  gave,  with  the  consent  of  his 
people,  that  cane  to  Adam  Kok,  to  rule  his  land  and  people.  Cap- 
tain Adam  Kok  at  first  saw  difficulty  .  .  but  he  said  that  he  was 
nevertheless  bound,  as  Griqua  Chief  and  heir  of  Cornelius  Kok. 
He  then  appointed  John  Bartlett  as  Provisional  Captain.  .  ." 

The  following  declaration  by  this  witness  still  fur- 
ther proves  the  fact  that  Waterboer  never  had  any  interest 
in  the  Campbell  grounds.  Referring  to  Adam  Kok's 
visit  to  Waterboer,  in  1861,  just  before  his  departure 
for  No  Man's  Land,  he  states  : — 

"Adam  Kok  then  asked  who  would  follow  him  .  .  .  Those  who 
were  willing  demanded  that  he  should  give  them  liberty  to  sell 
their  ground  on  north  side  of  the  Yaal  River  to  whoever  they 
wished.  Captain  Waterboer  and  his  Itaad  then  saw  difficulties  to  allow 
free  sale  on  the  north  side  of  the  Vaal  River ;  and  an  arrangement  ivas 
then  made  between  Captain  Waterboer  with  his  Council  and  Captain 
Adam  Kok  with  his  Council.  Captain  Waterboer  promised  to  give 
a  portion  of   his  land   (Albania)  on  the  south    side  of  the  Vaal 


p.  goojiman's  evidence.  127 

River,  in  order  that  those  who  wished  to  trek  with  Captain  Adam 
Kok  could  get  other  places  (land)  there ;  and  that  the  line  on 
the  north  side  of  the  Vaal  River  would  then  be  inalienable  to  white 
people.  The  two  Captains  then  went  to  Vetberg,  and  I  accom- 
panied them.  At  Vetberg  the  two  Chiefs  could  not  come  to  an 
arrangement.  .  .  .  Adam  Kok  then  said,  '  I  give  (offer)  you  a 
large  portion  of  land  to  the  north  of  Vaal  River,  and  full  of  foun- 
tains, and  (you)  Waterboer  wish  to  give  me  a  tract  of  dry  land  for 
it,  and  I  cannot  be  satisfied  with  it.'  He  therefore  declared  the 
(proposed)  exchange  and  arrangement  void,  and  immediately  gave  in- 
structions to  W.  Corner  to  issue  certificates  to  the  burghers  of  Camp- 
bell to  sell  their  lands  to  whom  they  ivished !  I  myself  brought  the 
certificates  to  Adam  Kok  for  his  signature,  after  Corner  had  written 
them.  Adam  Kok  was  quite  dissatisfied  that  Waterboer  wished  to 
give  him  a  dry  tract  of  land." 

(Tins  evidence  is  another  proof  of  Waterboer's 
cunning,  overreaching  disposition,  and  further  illus- 
trates his  hankering  after  the  Campbell  grounds,  now 
so  unjustly  seized  for  him  by  the  British  authorities 
by  force.  Any  one  acquainted  with  Albania  can 
readily  appreciate  Adam  Kok's  indignation  when  he 
saw  the  strip  of  dry,  barren,  sandy  desert  his  crafty 
brother  chief  sought  to  foist  upon  him  for  the  more 
verdant  and  better  watered  Campbell  grounds.) 

11  As  far  as  I  know,  Waterboer  then  made  no  claim  to  the  ground  on  the 
north  side  of  the  Vaal  River. 

"  As  far  as  I  know,  Captain  Waterboer  did  not,  from  1855  to  1861, 
lay  claim  to  the  north  side  of  Vaal  River. 

"As  far  as  I  know,  Captain  Cornelius  Kok  never  received  orders 
from  Captain  Waterboer  how  to  act  in  his  country  .  .  .  ." 

By  Mr.  Mc  Cabe:  (Member  of  the  O.F.S.  Executive  Council) 

" .  .  .  I  do  not  know  whether  the  transfer  of  the  government  by 
Cornelius  Kok  (to  Captain  Adam  Kok)  was  made  known  in 
writing  to  Captain  Waterboer,  neither  do  I  know  whether  he 
received  a  verbal  message :  but  after  that  time,  during  the  Provi- 
sional Captainship  of  John  Bartlett,  Waterboer  always  acknowledged 


128  mb.  h.  harvey's  evidence. 

him  as  the  provisional  captain  of  Adam  Kok.  I  know  it  from  several 
letters  which  Bartlett  still  has  in  his  possession.  •  I  was  cleric  to 
Bartlctt.  .  .  ." 

5. — Mr.  Henry  Harvey,  sworn: — 

(This  gentleman's  evidence  is  highly  important,  as 
he  it  was  who  acted  as  Captain  Adam  Kok's  agent, 
and  sold  to  the  Orange  Free  State  not  only  all  the 
remaining  Griqua  lands  [excepting  only  Albania] 
south  of  the  Vaal,  but  also  the  Campbell  grounds,  or 
territory  of  Captain  Cornelius  Kok  north  of  that  river. 
I  ascertained,  whilst  in  the  country,  that  his  character 
and  reputation  stand  high  and  unblemished,  so  that 
his  credibility  as  a  witness  cannot  be  doubted.) 

"  I  reside  at  Philippolis.  I  was  general  agent  of  Captain  Adam 
Kok,  by  a  general  power  of  attorney,  No.  4,  dated  15th  August, 
1861."  (Quoted  by  us  in  Chapter  V).  "  By  that  I  was  authorised 
to  sell  the  lands  of  Philippolis  as  well  as  of  Cornelius  Kok.  I  was 
first  purchaser  of  all  Government  ground,  which  had  to  be  inspected 
according  to  instructions  of  the  combined  Land  Commission,  docu- 
ment No.  2,  Art.  5,  dated  12th  July,  1860."  (Extract  from  the 
"  instructions  "  referred  to  :  "  Art.  5.  All  uninspected  lands  in  the 
territory  of  Captain  A.  Kok,  as  well  as  of  the  late  Cornelius  Kok,  shall 
be  inspected."*  Signed  by  the  President  of  the  Orange  Free  State 
and  Captain  A  Kok),  "  and  according  to  other  instructions,  marked* 
No.  3,  Art.  5,  27th  August,  1861."  (Article  5  in  these  instructions 
is  of  precisely  the  same  nature  as  that  quoted  from  "No.  2 
document.") 

"  ....  A  day  was  then  appointed  on  which  the  President  of  the 
Free  State,  with  some  of  the  members  of  the  Executive  Council, 
should  meet  Adam  Kok  at  Vischgat.  President  Pretorius,  Messrs. 
Steijn,  Jacobus  Venter,  and  Erwee  as  members  of  the  Executive 
Council,  with  Captain  Adam  Kok,  and  the  four  members  of 
the    Land    Commission    (Griqua),     Messrs.    Voortman,    Anthony 

*  Vide  pp.  1  and  2,  Annexures,  Blue  Book,  O.F.S.,  "Minutes  of  Meeting 
at  tfooitgedacht,  1870." 


mr.  h.  harvey's  evidence.  129 

Kok,  Jan  Krijnauw,  Theunissen,  and  I,  were  there.  That  evening 
I  purchased  from  Captain  Adam  Kok  all  the  open  Government  ground 
which  should  be  found  according  to  the  beforementioned  Zand  Commission 
instructions,  for  the  sum  of  £4,000.  President  Pretorius  came  to  my 
tent,  and  I  told  him  that  I  had  purchased  the  ground.  He  asked 
Captain  Adam  Kok,  '  Have  you  sold  it  ?'  Adam  Kok  said,  '  /  have 
now  sold  everything,  I  have  nothing  further  to  do  with  if  "  .  .  .  . 

"  Afterwards,  before  Adam  Kok  went  to  No  Man's  Land,  I  again 
came  to  Philippolis  before  him  and  his  Paad.  I  then  asked  Adam 
Kok  to  cancel  the  sale.  Neither  he  nor  his  Raad  would  consent  to  it  ! 
I  said  he  was  now  going  away,  and  it  would  be  difficult  for  me  to 
attend  the  Land  Commission,  and  gave  him  several  reasons  why. 
Afterwards  they  so  far  agreed  with  me."  (Although  it  does  not 
transpire  in  the  evidence,  the  witness  meant  to  say  that  his  purchase 
was  revoked.)  "I  promised  that  I  would  sell  it  for  the  same  sum 
of  £4,000.  The  captain  and  his  Eaad  said,  'Do  so,  then;  but  do 
not  sell  it  for  less.  I  leave  everything  in  your  hands ;  do  with  it 
what  you  will.'  I  said  that  I  would  try  to  sell  it  to  the  Free 
State  Government.  He  said,  *  Do  so  ;  do  what  you  like  ;  it  is  now 
in  your  hands.'  I  wrote  one  or  two  letters  to  the  President  of  the 
Orange  Free  State,  stating  that  if  he  came  to  Philippolis,  and  we 
could  agree,  I  would  sell  him  the  ground.  President  Pretorius 
came  to  Philippolis  with  Mr.  van  Olden,  and  there  we  agreed,  and 
I  sold  the  ground  according  to  what  I  myself  purchased ;  and  the 
deed  of  sale,  No.  16"  (quoted  at  length  in  Chapter  V.)  "was 
drawn  up.  .  .  . 

"  The  purchase  money  of  £4,000,  with  the  interest  due  thereon,  1 
received  from  the  Orange  Free  State  Government.  Adam  Kok  received 
from  me  between  £7,000  and  £8,000  before  he  left  for  No  Man*  8  Land,  for 
which  I  hold  his  receipts.  I]  believe  Mr.  Arnot  drew  up  the 
receipts." 

This  is  a  very  clear,  positive,  and  definite  statement 
of  fact.  Neither  Waterboer  nor  his  British  allies  have 
ever  yet  adduced  evidence  in  refutation,  although  the 
latter  have  seized  for  the  former  all  the  land  so  purchased, 
viz.,  that  to  the  east,  Free  State,  or  Adam  and  Corne- 
lius Kok's  side  of  the  Vetberg  line,  the  Free  State 
being  thus  robbed  not  only  of  land,  but  of  £4,000  as 

K 


130  Ml!.    11.    harvey's    EVIDENCE. 

well !  Indeed,  it  loses  more  than  this,  for  a  consider- 
able portion  of  the  lands  which  were  privately  bought 
(the  prices  of  which  made  up  the  larger  sum  of  money 
Mr.  Harvey  paid  to  Adam  Kok)  have  been  cut  off,  also, 
by  the  boundary  line  of  the  large  tract  of  Free  State 
territory  " annexed" — that  is  to  say,  robbed,  plundered, 
stolen,  or  filibustered — by  Sir  H.  Barkly,  Governor  of 
the  Cape.  Advisedly  I  select  an  individual,  because 
(1)  the  Cape  Parliament  having  finally  rejected  the 
little  bill  by  which  he  sought  to  obtain  their  sanction, 
consent,  and  endorsement,  (2)  and  the  Imperial  Go- 
vernment in  Downing  Street,  having  only  given  him 
a  provisional  authority  to  annex,  by  and  with  the 
formal  assent  of  his  Parliament,  he  stands  solitary  and 
alone  responsible  for  the  premature,  illegal,  and  utterly 
unauthorized  hostile  invasion,  seizure,  alienation,  and 
annexation  vi  et  minis  of  Free  State  territory.  Mr. 
Harvey's  evidence  continues  : — 

Cross-examined  hj  Mr.  Grant. 

' '  When  I  sold  the  ground  to  President  Pretorius,  i"  did  so  accord- 
ing to  the  deed  of  sale,  as  I  was  unacquainted  with  the  boundary 
line ;  had  I  known  the  boundary  line  then,  I  would  never  have 
sold  for  that  price.  Mr.  Pretorius  did  not  ask  me  whether  I 
sold  the  lands  to  the  North  side  of  Yaal  Eiver ;  but  Isold  him  the 
Campbell  lands,  wherever  they  might  be  situated,  according  to  the  Deed 
of  Sale." 

u After  the  sale  Mr.  Pretorius  laid  claim  to  the  Campbell 
lands,  and  the  Government  of  the  Orange  Free  State  did 
so  also." 

"  Adam  Kok  never  after  the  sale  denied  the  sale  of  the  Campbell 
lands.  ..." 

' '  I  sold  all  the  lands  which  belonged  to  Cornelius  Kok,  as  I  bought 
them  from  Adam  Kok. 


EXTENT    OF    THE    SALE.  131 

"  Besides  the  lands  described  in  the  Maitland  treaty.  I  also  sold 
the  lands  of  Cornelius  Kok" 

On  these  points  this  witness  is  corroborated  by  all 
the  others,  and  by  a  vast  mass  of  documentary  evi- 
dence, proving  that  not  only  was  Adam  Kok,  at  the 
time,  thoroughly  satisfied  with  his  bargain,  but  that 
neither  protest  nor  complaint  was  heard  from  Water- 
boer  until  long  after,  when  the  ubiquitous  Mr.  Arnot 
seems  to  have  got  to  work. 

The  land  actually  sold  south  of  the  Vaal  (excepting 
the  Campbell  lands  to  the  north)  was  that  other  exten- 
sive tract  of  country  named  South  Adamantia,  on  all 
our  diagrams.  It  constituted  the  greater  part  of  the 
"  alienable  territory  "  defined  in  the  Maitland  treaty, 
and  was  afterwards  recognized  as  pertaining  to  Captain 
Cornelius  Kok,  being  the  same  land  that  was  sepa- 
rated and  marked  off  from  his  own  territory  of  Philip- 
polis  by  Captain  Adam  Kok,  by  the  line  he  made  from 
Ramah  to  David's  Graf  in  1840,  and  being  also  the 
same  land  that  was  definitely  beaconed  off  from  Water- 
boer's  territory  of  Albania  by  the  "  Vetberg  line"  in 
1855.  At  the  same  time  it  must  be  remembered  that 
the  Free  State  Government  did  not  purchase  anything 
like  the  whole,  or  even  a  half,  of  this  territory,  but  only 
the  "  open  grounds,"  for  most  of  it  was  already  in  the 
occupation  and  possession  of  Free  State  farmers,  or 
burghers  who  had  already  at  various  and  widely 
different  periods,  purchased  their  farms  therein,  both 
from  Cornelius  and  Adam  Kok. 

After  an  adjournment  from  noon  until  two  p.m.  on 
August  20th,  the  meeting  was  resumed. 

Attorney  Vels  said  that  he  had  more  witnesses,  who 

k  2 


132 


.).    BAETLETT  S    I  VIDENCE. 


refused  to  appear,  unless  summoned,  which  lie  requested 
should  be  done,  in  writing,  by  the  President  and 
Captain  Waterboer.  This  having-  been  arranged,  he 
calls — 

6.     John  Barllett,  sworn  : — 

(We  must  premise  that  this  witness,  the  former  Pro- 
visional Captain  of  Campbell  appointed  by  Adam  Kok,  at 
the  resignation  of  Cornelius,  was  then  one  of  Waterboer' s 
own  raad,  or  council,  and  gave  his  evidence  with  re- 
luctance.) 

"I  live  at  Campbell,  and  have  resided  there  for  about  31  years. 
When  I  came  to  Campbell,  Cornelius  Kok  was  chief.  As  far  as  my 
knowledge  goes,  he  xoas  there  an  independent  chief.  He  had  a  raad. 
.  .  .  He  had  a  cane .  .  .  The  cane  signified  that  he  was  a  captain. 
That  cane  he  gave  over  to  Captain  Adam  Kok,  because  he  was  too 
old — so  he  made  over  his  authority  over  his  people  to  Captain  Adam  Kok. 
.  .  .  I  was  0-esent .  .  .  Cornelius  Kok  made  over  his  Government  to  Adam 
Kok  .  .  .  Before  his  departure  Adam  Kok  appointed  me  there  as  provi- 
sional captain,  and  I  remained  provisional  captain  of  Campbell  until 
1861.  .  ." 

By  this  evidence  we  see  that  during  a  period  of  four 
years,  from  about  the  middle  of  1857  to  August  or 
September,  1861,  this  witness  exercised  the  functions 
of  Provisional  Captain  of  Campbell  for  Adam  Kok, 
who  was  the  paramount  chief  as  heir  and  successor  to 
Cornelius,  without  any  protest,  intervention,  or  even  com- 
plaint, from  Waterboer !  Yet  now,  forsooth,  this 
latter  and  his  British  official  backers  have  the  un- 
blushing hardihood  to  pretend  that  he  was  always  Chief 
and  Captain  of  Campbell !  But  they  do  not  explain 
how  it  came  to  pass  that,  after  the  resignation  of  old 
Cornelius,  both  the  subsequent  provisional  captains  ot 


j.  bartlett's  evidence.  133 

Campbell  were  appointed  by  Adam  Kok,  the  chief 
into  whose  hands  not  a  shadow  of  doubt  exists  that  he 
resigned  his  government. 

"I  cannot  say,  but  I  have  heard,  that  there  was  a  line  between 
Campbell  and  Griqua  Town.  I  heard  it  from  the  people ;  those 
born  in  the  country.     I  also  heard  it  from  the  late  Cornelius  Kok." 

(This  refers  to  the  line  described  in  Chapter  II,  and 
defined  on  diagram  A.  The  witness  being  so  old  a 
resident  of  the  Campbell  lands  must  have  been  well 
acquainted  with  it,  but  no  doubt  gave  his  evidence 
unwillingly,  and  in  dread  of  Waterboer.) 

"  I  was  present  in  1855,  on  the  farm  of  Stiglingh,  when  the  line 
on  the  other,  or  south  side,  of  the  Vaal  Eiver  was  spoken  of;  it  was 
at  Eiet  Eiver.  The  farm  of  Stiglingh,  is  called  '  Abraham  Moos- 
fontein.'  There  the  chiefs  were  together,  Captain  Waterboer,  Captain 
Adam  Kok,  and  Captain  Cornelius  Kok,  and  held  a  meeting  there 
about  the  line ;  and  they  there  decided  where  the  line  was  to  go. 
They  made  the  line.  ..." 

(This  was  the  "  Vetberg  line,"  which  Waterboer 
and  his  allies  now  dispute,  and  actually  declare  to 
have  been  made  without  his  knowledge,  presence,  or 
sanction  !) 

.  .  .  "  I  have  a  farm  in  the  territory  of  Campbell.  1  have  a  re- 
quest {title  deed)  of  it  from  Cornelius  Kok!  I  have  the  request 
still.  .  ." 

(This  is  pretty  conclusive  evidence  (by  one  of  Water- 
boer's  own  raad,  too)  that  that  chief  never  ruled  over 
the  Campbell  lands,  because,  if  he  did,  the  title  deeds 
would  have  been  given  by  him — not  Cornelius  Kok !) 

"  I  am  now  one  of  the  members  of  Captain  Waterboer's  Volks- 
raad  .... 


134  j.  babtlett's  evidence. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Grant. 

"  "Waterboer  was  not  present  when  I  was  appointed  provisional 
captain  by  Adam  Kok.  /  did  not  ask  JTaterboer's  approbation  of  my 
appointment .  .  . 

"It  was  first  a  positive  law  of  all  the  Griquas  that  the  ground 
could  not  be  sold  to  white  people.  This  was,  however,  afterwards 
done  by  Captain  Adam  Kok.  But  with  "Waterboer  the  old  law  still 
exists." 

(This  is,  indeed,  a  well  known  fact ;  and,  as  it  is 
equally  certain  that  the  grounds  now  claimed  and 
wrongfully  seized  for  Waterboer  by  the  Colonial 
Governor,  were  sold,  at  various  periods,  and,  finally, 
whatever  remained  of  them  in  1861,  to  the  Orange 
Free  State,  it  affords  another  very  positive  proof  that 
the  present  crafty  claimant  never  could  have  been  the 
owner.) 

"Cornelius  Kok  sold  ground  on  the  other  or  south  side  of  the 
Vaal  Eiver." 

The  following  statement  very  clearly  proves  again 
that  Waterboer  certainly  had  neither  the  slightest 
authority  nor  jurisdiction  over  Campbell  during,  at 
least,  the  term  of  this  witness's  office  there,  for  crimi- 
nals were  subject  to  extradition  from  Campbell  accord- 
ing to  whether  they  were  natives  of  Watcrboer's 
territory  or  the  Philippolis  territory  of  Adam  Kok. 

Re-examined  by  Mr.  Vels. 

"Whilst  I  was  provisional  captain,  I  apprehended  people  at 
Campbell.  The  persons  whom  I  apprehended  I  took  to  Griqua 
Town  because  they  were  subjects  of  Waterboer.  I  took  two  prisoners  of 
the  people  over  ivhom  I  had  been  placed  to  Philippolis  ;  they  had  committed 
a  murder  icithin  the  territory  of  Campbell.  The  criminals  whom  I 
took  to  Griqua  Town  had  also  committed  murder  in  the  territory  of 
Campbell.      The  prisoners  whom  I  took  to  Philippolis  were  two 


JAN  jansen's  evidence.  135 

Bushmen   who   resided   at   Campbell.       They  had  committed  the 
murder  after  the  death  of  Captain  Cornelius  Kok." 

7.     Jan  Jans  en,  sivorn  : — 

(This  witness  was  also  one  of  those  who  had  to  be 
summoned,  being  under  the  influence  of  Waterboer.) 

"I  live  at  Campbell,  and  grew  up  there.  I  knew  Captain  Cornelius 
Kok.  As  far  as  I  know,  he  was  an  independent  captain,  because  he 
always  ruled  there.  .  .  .  He  had  a  raad,  just  as  the  other  captains.  .  .  . 

"  Cornelius  Kok,  before  his  death,  made  over  his  government  to 
Adam  Kok.  I  was  present  on  the  occasion.  He  said  to  Adam  Kok, 
'  I  am  too  old  ;  my  body  is  too  weak ;  I  cannot  govern  as  it  ought  to 
be  ;  now  I  make  it  over  to  you  as  a  young  man,  and  my  heir.'  There 
were  many  present.  Adam  Kok  also  spoke.  He  said  he  could  not 
(accept).  '  He  was  too  far.'  '  I  have  enough  to  govern  there  '  (at 
Philippolis),  '  so  that  it  will  be  difficult  for  me  to  come  here,  and  to 
govern  from  there  here,  and  from  here  there.'  He  said,  secondly, 
'  How  shall  I  govern  you  ?  You  have  sold  your  ground  (or  parts  of 
it);  people  ought  to  be  ruled  on  ground.  How  can  I  govern 
people  without  ground  ?'  At  last  he  said,  '  Well,  you  must  give  me 
a  clear  (or  clean)  line.  .  .  .'  "  • 

(Here,  again,  crops  up  a  further  very  convincing 
though  indirect  proof  that  Waterboer  had  nothing 
whatever  to  do  with  either  the  lands  of  Cornelius  Kok 
or  his  actions.  Waterboer' s  people  have  never,  to  this 
day,  sold  land ;  whereas,  from  the  year  1840,  till  his 
resignation  of  government  in  1857,  Cornelius  Kokand 
his  people  always  did ;  Adam  Kok  disposing  of  the 
remainder  of  their  "  open  ground"  at  the  sale  by  Mr. 
Harvey  on  the  26th  of  December,  1861.) 

" .  .  .  I  did  not  see  that  Captain  Adam  Kok,  or  Captain  Nicholas 
Waterboer,  governed  at  Campbell.  Neither  do  I  know  that  they 
governed  there.  In  1861,  I  went  under  the  government  of  Captain 
Nicolas  Waterboer." 

With  this  we  terminate  our  extracts  from  the  oral 


136  VALUE   OF   THE   EVIDENCE. 

evidence  adduced  in  favour  of  the  Orange  Free  State 
at  the  "  Meeting  at  Nooitgedacht."  Surely  it  is  far 
more  than  sufficient  to  counteract  the  testimony  of  the 
solitary  witness  Waterboer  produced ;  especially  as,  to 
this  day,  not  a  single  fact  has  been  forthcoming  either 
to  refute  one  word  then  stated,  or  to  even  challenge 
the  credibility  of  one  of  the  seven  Free  State  witnesses 
— all,  be  it  remembered,  individuals  whose  evidence  is 
entitled  to  the  most  serious  consideration,  two  being 
English  gentlemen  of  well-known  jDrobity  and  position, 
the  remaining  five  Griqua  officials,  of  all  others  the 
most  likely  to  be  thoroughly  well  acquainted  with  the 
acts  and  true  rank  of  the  late  Cornelius  Kok !  In  fact, 
their  evidence  stands  unchallenged  and  indisputable. 

But  to  still  more  unmistakeably  prove  the  merits  of 
the  Free  State  case,  and  justify  my  own  animadver- 
sions upon  the  conduct  of  the  British  authorities  who 
have  so  wrongly  put  up  Waterboer  and  his  false  claims 
as  a  puppet  and  as  philanthropic  pretensions  to  mask 
their  own  mercenary  and  aggressive  intentions,  even 
at  the  risk  of  nauseating  with  a  surfeit  of  similar  state- 
ments the  few  who  may  wade  through  these  writings, 
I  venture  to  supplement  the  evidence  just  concluded 
by  extracts  from  the  report  of  the  Land  Commission 
referred  to  at  the  beginning  of  Chapter  VI. 


dirk  kok's  evidence.  137 

Extracts  from*  "  Minutes  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Com- 
mission  deputed  by  the  Government  of  the  Orange  Free 
State,  in  December,  1863,  to  inquire  into  the  rights  of 
the  Campbell  grounds :  " — 

"  The  commission  met  this  morning,  the  11th  inst.  (at  Campbell) 
and  immediately  requested  the  Provisional  Captain,  Dirk  Kok" 
(successor  to  Jan  Bartlett),  who  had  been  appointed  by  Captain 
Adam  Kok  to  come  over,  who  arrived  in  the  evening,  and  made  the 
following  declaration : — 

"  'I  am  a  son  of  Adam  Kok,  generally  called  Kort  Adam,  and 
arrived  in  1815  from  the  Kamiesbergen  (Cape  Colony)  at 
Griqua  Town,  and  there  found  as  ruler  Adam  Kok  ;  and  at  Campbell 
the  now  deceased  Cornelius  Kok  was  then  there  as  ruler  ! '  " 

(How  does  this  statement,  the  repetition,  indeed,  of 
a  well-known  historical  fact,  coincide  with  the  menda- 
cious assertion  of  Messrs.  Waterboer  &  Co.,  that  the 
late  Andries  Waterboer  appointed  the  late  Cornelius 
Kok  to  Campbell  as  his  subordinate  ?  It  is  notorious 
that  Cornelius  Kok,  as  the  witness  testified,  was  already 
Chief  of  Campbell  long  before  old  Andries  Waterboer 
was  raised  from  obscurity,  and  made  first  a  constable, 
then  the  Chief  of  Griqua  Town,  by  old  Dam  Kok.) 

The  Provisional  Captain,  Dirk  Kok,  "  added  the 
following  evidence :" — 

"  *  Cornelius  Kok,  who  was  Captain  of  Campbell,  had  his  own 
councillors,  and  held  his  own  raad,  wholly  independent  of  the  Govern- 
ments of  Griqua  Town,  Boetchap,  and  JPhilippolis  .  .  .  Cornelius  Kok 
never  had  to  give  any  account  to  Captain  Waterboer  of  his  doings. 

"'I  was  also  present  when  Captain  Kok,  of  Philippolis,  and  the 
now  reigning  Captain,  Nicolas  Waterboer,  of  Griqua  Town,  wanted 
to  make  an  exchange  of  grounds  at  Vetberg.     The  exchange  was  to 

*  Videip.  4,  Annexures,  "  Annexure  No.  6,"  Blue  Book,  O.F.S.," Minutes 
of  Meeting  at  Nooitgedacht,  1870." 


138  dirk  kok's  evidence. 

have  been  as  follows  : — Waterboer  was  to  give  to  Adam  Kok  the 
grounds,  or  at  least  a  part  of  the  ground  (Albania),  on  the  south  side 
of  the  Yaal  Eiver,  but  not  the  river-field,  for  Campbell  and  its 
grounds ;  but  Adam  Kok  refused  to  do  so,  because  Waterboer 
wanted  to  give  him  dry  field,  whilst  Campbell  and  its  grounds  had 
many  fountains.  Waterboer  then  said,  '  Well,  buy  this  ground  on 
this  or  the  south  side  of  the  river,  then  I  shall  buy  Campbell  and  all  the 
adjacent  lands  !  '  " 

(Pretty  strong  evidence,  this,  against  Waterboer's 
impudent  claim !) 

"  To  which  Captain  Adam  Kok  replied,  '  Then  my  people  themselves 
can  sell  those  lands  ;  '  and  immediately  gave  orders  to  write  out  certifi- 
cates for  the  people  of  grounds  in  and  about  Campbell,  which  ivas  at  once 
clone.1 " 

(It  is  at  least  singular  how  Adam  Kok  granted  title- 
deeds  of  the  Campbell  grounds  in  the  actual  presence 
of  the  now  alleged  owner  and  paramount  chief — and 
that,  too,  without  encountering  either  protest  or 
impediment !) 

"'On  his  death  (or,  rather,  before  it)  Captain  Cornelius 
Kok,  of  Campbell,  made  over  Campbell  with  all  its  grounds,  as  the 
lines  (boundaries)  were,  to  Captain  Adam  Kok,  of  Philippolis ;  also 
the  staff  of  office  ;  in  the  presence  of  Nicolas  Waterboer,  of  Griqua 
Town,  myself,  and  several  other  persons  ;  and  Captain  Adam  Kok 
then  (afterwards,  in  1861,  when  Jan  Bartlett  retired)  appointed 
me  as  provisional  captain,  at  which  Waterboer  did  not  show  any  dis- 
satisfaction, and  he  never  hindered  me  in,  or  interfered  ivith,  my  govern- 
ment r  " 

This  declaration  is  pretty  conclusive,  though  some 
confusion  seems  to  have  occurred  in  the  translation, 
copying,  or  reporting  of  dates.  However,  the  main 
point  is  the  fact  that  Dirk  Kok  was  the  second  Pro- 
visional Captain  of  Campbell ;  that  lie  was  appointed 


ABRAHAM   KOK's    EVIDENCE.  139 

by  Adam  Kok ;  and  that,  like  his  predecessor,  John 
Bartlett,  and  also  the  late  Captain  Cornelius  Kok,  he 
never  gave  any  obedience  to  Waterboer. 

"  2.'  Abraham  Kok  declares  as  follows : — 

"  '  I  am  brother  of  old  Dam  Kok,  the  former  Chief  of  Philippolis. 
I  was  here  first  at  Griqna  Town  and  Campbell  in  1812.  .  .  .  Adam 
Kok,  or  old  Dam  Kok,  was  Chief  of  Griqua  Town,  and  afterwards 
of  Philippolis,  and  Cornelius  Kok  was  appointed  as  Chief  of  Camp- 
bell. .  .  . 

"  '  Captain  Waterboer  himself  told  me,  when  I  asked  him  about  the 
boundary  line  betioeen  Campbell  and  Griqua  Toivn,  that  the  line  went 
from  the  drift  in  Vaal  River,  named  Koukonop,  in  about  a  northerly 
direction  to  Withuis,  and  thence  to  half  way  between  Campbell  and  Griqua 
Town,  and  from  there  to  Kogelbeen,  and  then  further  on/  '  " 

(This  is  again  exactly  the  line  we  described  in 
Chapter  II.,  and  depicted  on  diagram  A,  and  is  the 
same  that  was  sworn  to  (without  the  least  material 
difference)  by  all  the  witnesses,  both  at  Nooitgedacht 
and  before  the  Land  Commission  whose  proceedings 
we  are  now  investigating.  One  cannot  avoid  the  per- 
tinent reflection  the  continual  mention  of  this  line 
induces,  namely — What  was  the  line  between  Camp- 
bell and  Griqua  Town  made  for,  if  both  territories,  as 
now  asserted,  belonged  to  one  and  the  same  chief,  our 
friend  Waterboer  ?) 

.  .  .  "  'I  then  asked  him,  'If  Adam  Kok  had,  as  I  had  heard, 
sold  all  the  grounds  of  Cornelius  Kok,  of  Campbell,  to  the  Free 
State  Government,  how  it  would  then  be  with  the  private  property 
of  the  people?'  To  which  Waterboer  replied,  1 1  do  not  know,  for  I 
do  not  even  know  how  it  will  be  with  my  own  ground  which  is  on  the  place.'1 
He  meant  thereby  ground  in  Campbell.' " 

(Waterboer  at  this  time  was  the  owner  of  two  or 
three  farms  and  erven  in  Campbell  and  the  country 
around,  to  which  the  conversation  alludes.) 


140  ABRAHAM    KOK's    EVIDENCE. 

"  'I  was  present  at  the  death  of  Cornelius  Kok,  and  then  heard 
that  he  had  made  over  Campbell  with  all  its  rights  and  ground  to 
Captain  Adam  Kok,  of  Philippolis,  together  with  the  cane  of  office. 
Captain  Waterboer  teas  also  present,  and  did  not  say  anything  against 
iV  " 

The  evidence  of  this  well-known  and  leading  Gri- 
qua  is  irresistibly  overwhelming  to  the  trumped-up 
Waterboer  case.  The  above  pointed  dialogues  have 
yet  to  be  refuted,  or  even  denied.  Abraham  Kok 
then  went  on  to  prove,  as  all  the  other  witnesses  had 
done,  the  appointment  of  the  provisional  captains  of 
Campbell  by  Adam  Kok,  and  the  abortive  attempt 
made  at  Vetberg  in  1861  "to  exchange  the  lands  of 
Campbell  for  a  tract  of  dry  ground "  in  Albania ; 
after  which  he  further  declared  : — 


<(  ( 


I  also  know  that  Waterboer  has  accepted  erven  situated  at 
Campbell,  as  a  present  for  his  child ;  which  erven  (measurements 
of  land)  were  originally  issued  by  Captain  Cornelius  Kok,  by  requests, 
f  title  deeds)  to  a  certain  Stiglingh,  and  sold  by  Stiglingh  to  Cap- 
tain Adam  Kok.' "... 

The  following  genealogical  statement,  particularly 
interesting  to  Waterboer,  very  clearly  proving  the 
impossibility  of  the  alleged  appointment  of  Cornelius 
Kok  to  Campbell  by  one  (and  the  first)  of  that  ilk, 
will  be  found  to  fully  corroborate  our  historical  de- 
scription in  Chapter  II  of  old  Waterboer's  debut  on 
the  political  stage  of  life : — 

.  .  .  "  Old  Waterboer  was  a  messenger  of  Griqua  Town  when 
old  Dam  Kok  had  a  dispute  with  the  missionary  at  Griqua  Town, 
and  then  appointed  my  uncle,  Adam  Kok,  commonly  called  Kort 
Adam,  to  administer  the  local  affairs  of  the  village  of  Griqua  Town. 
This  Adam  Kok  being  a  blacksmith  by  trade,  and  having  much  to 
do,  appointed  the  now  deceased  Waterboer,  so  long  the  messenger 


ARIE    SAMUELS'    EVIDENCE.  14:1 

of  the  place,  to  keep  the  village  of  Griqua  Town  in  order: 
and  afterwards,  when  old  Dam  Kok  established  Philippolis,  he 
appointed  Waterboer  as  Captain  of  Griqua  Town,  as  the  inhabitants 
of  the  place  desired  it.  Cornelius  Kok  was  then  already 
Captain  of  Campbell  ! !  " 

(Very  precise  and  distinct  this!  From  an  eye- 
witness of,  and  participator  in,  the  scenes  described, 
too,  as  were  most  of  the  witnesses  whose  evidence  I 
am  analyzing  on  the  Free  State  side,  as  opposed  to  the 
bare,  unsupported,  uncorroborated  ipse  dixit  of  the 
present  Waterboer,  who  was  not  bom  at  the  period 
(1812—15)  referred  to  /) 

"  'Adam  Kok,  or  old  Dam  Kok,  then  also  made  the  boundary 
line  between  Griqua  Town  and  Campbell.  .  .  Boetchap  was  cut 
off  from  the  lands  of  Campbell  when  Barend  Barendse  became 
Captain  of  it,  but  after  his  death  it  again  came  under  Campbell 
and  Cornelius  Kok." 

"  3.  Arte  Samuels  being  called,  declares : — 

"  'I  always  was  a  councillor  of  Cornelius  Kok,  and  I  resided  at 
Campbell.  Cornelius  Kok  was  appointed  as  Captain  of  Campbell, 
and  Barend  Barendse  of  Boetchap.  Waterboer  was  then  also 
made  Captain  of  Griqua  Town.  The  line  between  Campbell  and 
Griqua  Town  was  already  made  in  the  time  of  old  Dam  Kok,  when 
he  was  Captain  or  Great  Chief  of  the  whole  country  and  people  of 
the  Griquas.'  " 

(He  then  describes  the  line  given  in  diagram  A, 
adding,  however,  the  following  important  evidence) : — 

"  '  This  line,  just  now  mentioned,  was  shown  to  Waterboer  at  the 
meeting  at  Vetberg  in  1855,  and  I  have  never  heard  that  he  disputed 
that  line?  " 

The  witness  then  describes  the  meeting  at  Vetberg 
in  1861,  and  the  failure  of  the  proposed  exchange  of 
lands     its  object,)  and  narrating  the  issue  of  title-deeds 


142  ii.  hendrik's  evidence. 

to  tlie  people  of  Campbell,  on  the  spot,  by  Captain 
Adam  Kok,  adds, 

"  '  This  happened  in  the  presence  of  Waterboer  and  some  of  his 
councillors,  against  which   Waterboer  did  not  object. 

" '  I  was  also  present  when  Cornelius  Kok,  of  Campbell,  shortly 
before  his  death,  made  over  Campbell  and  its  lands  to  Captain 
Adam  Kok,  of  Philippolis.  This  happened  in  the  presence  of  Captain 
Waterboer,  against  which  he  made  no  remark. 

11 '  Captain  Cornelius  Kok,  of  Campbell,  had  his  own  councillors. 
I  was  always  one  of  them,  and  we  never  had  to  give  any  account  to 
Waterboer.     Waterboer  had  his  council  at  Griqua  Town.'  " 

From  the  sworn  depositions  of  Hendrik  Hendrikse, 
already  so  freely  quoted  in  Chapters  II,  IV,  and  V, 
and  who  was  so  long  the  Government  secretary  to 
the  Chief  of  Philippolis,  we  take  the  following 
extracts : — 

"4.  Hendrik  Hendrikse,  sworn  hy  J.  G.  Siebert,  Esq., 
Landdrost  of  Faaresmith  : — 

"  'Adam,  or  Dam  Kok,  was  appointed  to  rule  at  Griqua  Town, 
and  Cornelius  Kok  to  rule  at  Campbell.  .   . 

"  '  Dam  Kok,  as  being  chief  of  the  whole  Griqua  nation,  fixed  a 
boundary  line  between  Griqua  Town  and  Campbell,  resigned  his 
government  of  Griqua  Town  to  Waterboer  (about  the  year  1820), 
and  Cornelius  Kok  had  the  government  of  Campbell  with  its 
grounds. 

.  .  .  "  '  I  have  to  add  something.  If  (see  Blue  Book)  Cornelius 
Kok  was  appointed  as  Captain  of  Campbell  by  Waterboer  "  (the 
witness  is  disputing  this  chief's  mendacious  claim),  "how  can  it  be 
reconciled  with  the  fact  that  Waterboer,  with  Dr.  Philips,  in  1833, 
(see  Blue  Book)  ashed  the  British  Government,  by  letter,  to  appoint 
Abram  Kok  in  the  place  of  Cornelius  Kok,  at  Campbell  ? 

"'Secondly,  if  Campbell  was  included  in  the  lands  of  Griqua 
Town,  how  then  came  Waterboer  with  Dr.  Philips,  to  ash  the  British 
Government,  in  1833,  that  Campbell  might  be  annexed  to  Griqua  Town  ? 
for  in  1820,  Waterboer  (old  Andries)  became  Chief  of  Griqua  Town 
and  (as  Nicolas  Waterboer  now  alleges)  Campbell,  and  could  not 


MR.  w.  o.  corner's  evidence.  143 

therefore  ask  thirteen  years  later  to  become  chief  of  lands  over  which 
he  says  he  had  so  many  years  before  been  appointed  chief? '  " 

Messrs.  Waterboer,  Amot,  Southey  &  Co.  would 
find  it  remarkably  awkward  to  answer  satisfactorily 
for  their  own  pretensions  these  very  pertinent  ques- 
tions put  by  the  shrewd  former  secretary  of  the  Phili- 
ppolis  Government.  But  in  truth  they  have  never  yet 
taken  the  trouble  to  refute  any  of  the  Free  State  over- 
whelming evidence  of  right  and  title  to  all  the  former 
territory  of  the  late  Cornelius  Kok ;  British  bayonets, 
Sir  Henry  Barkly,  the  Cape  mounted  and  armed 
frontier  police,  &c,  having  supplied  a  much  more 
simple  and  effective  argumentum  ad  hominem. 

"  5.     Mr.  W.  0.  Comer: — 

"  Hands  to  the  Commission  in  elucidation  of  the  rights  of  Camp- 
bell the  following  documents,  No.  1 — 12,  inclusive,  and  further 
declared  that  everything  that  he  has  heard  of  the  declaration  of 
Hendrik  Hendrikse,  Abraham  Kok,  Dirk  Kok,  and  Arie  Samuels, 
as  far  as  it  is  within  his  knowledge,  is  the  truth." 

It  is,  indeed,  no  less  singular  than  worthy  of  notice 
how  clearly  and  distinctly  every  one  of  the  witnesses 
corroborates  the  testimony  of  the  others.  Yet,  for- 
sooth, Sir  Henry  Barkly  and  the  Cape  Government 
have  actually  accepted  the  nigger  Waterboer' s  mere 
ipse  dixit  to  the  contrary  !  I  find  that  Lieutenant- 
General  Hay,  then  acting-governor  of  the  Cape,  was 
the  first  to  do  so,  in  September,  1870,  and  further, 
upon  no  better  grounds,  to  deny  the  veracity  of  the 
sworn  statements  of  some  score  of  well  known,  highly 
respectable  witnesses,  whose  amply  attested  declara- 
tions exhibit  such  perfect  unanimity.  Indeed,  General 
Hay  and  his  successor,  Sir  H.  Barkly,  pretty  distinctly 
assert,  but  never  yet  have  adduced  an  iota  of  proof,  that 


144  GUBERNATORIAL   LIBELS. 

all  these  witnesses  in  favour  of  the  Free  State  rights 
are  rogues  and  vagabonds,  and  have  conspired  together 
to  wrong,  cheat,  and  plunder  their  suddenly  dearly 
beloved  Waterboer  of  his  diamond-fields !  But  they 
quite  fail  to  perceive,  or  at  least  give  no  sign  of  con- 
sciousness, that  they  thereby  assert  what  would  be 
one  of  the  most  perfect  and  stupendous  conspiracies, 
or  combinations  of  governments,  peoples,  and  dis- 
interested individuals  to  perjure  themselves,  which  can 
possibly  be  conceived  !  Why,  the  Tichborne  case  is 
nothing  to  it !  These  two  officials,  or,  rather,  their 
instigator  and  backer,  Mr.  Southey,  the  Colonial 
Secretary,  coolly  charge  two  white,  Christian,  and 
civilized  governments  (that  of  the  Orange  Free  State, 
and  of  the  Transvaal  Republic),  composed,  to  all  ap- 
pearance and  knowledge,  of  gentlemen  as  good  and 
honourable  as  themselves  ;  a  great  number  of  the 
burghers  of  both  states ;  together  with  nearly  all 
the  surviving  relatives  and  members  of  the  late  Corne- 
lius Kok's  government,  and  a  host  of  independent 
witnesses,  with  fraud,  conspiracy,  and  perjury !  Yet, 
not  to  this  day — and  I  defy  contradiction — have  they 
rebutted  one  single  statement  or  declaration  made  in 
favour  and  support  of  the  claims  of  the  Orange  Free 
State ! 

Mr.  Corner  further  adds  : 

"That  in  the  lifetime  of  Cornelius  Kok,  he  received  a  power  of 
attorney  from  that  chief  to  sell  lands  in  the  territory  of  Campbell,  which 
he  did  !  On  the  death  of  Cornelius  Kok,  Captain  A.  Kok,  of  Phi- 
lippolis,  again  confirmed  this  power,  on  which  he  sold  a  place  in  the 
Campbell  lands.  Some  of  Waterboer's  councillors  expressed  dissa- 
tisfaction at  it  to  Waterboer,  and  Waterboer  said  to  them,  l  W.  Corner 
has  a  right  to  do  so.      We  have  nothing  to  do  with  it  V  " 


THE    LAND    COMMISSION'S   KEPORT.  145 

The  power  of  attorney  here  mentioned  we  shall  have 
occasion  to  quote  and  refer  to  by  and  by,  when  the 
time  comes  to  disprove  General  Hay's  and  Sir  Henry 
Barkly's  iteration  of  Waterboer's  absurd  lie — that 
Cornelius  Kok  was  not  an  independent  chief,  and 
Adam  Kok  was  not  his  "  lawful  heir  and  successor." 

The  Commission  wound  up  its  labours  by  the 
following  declaration : 

"The  commission  exceedingly  regret  that  Captain  Waterboer 
did  not  come  to  Campbell  to  meet  them,  as  they  could  then  without 
any  doubt  have  considered  the  matter  as  finally  disposed  of;  as  they 
are  of  opinion  that  no  counter  proof  can  be  produced  by  Captain 
Waterboer  against  the  undoubted  fact  that  the  grounds  of  Campbell 
were  formerly  governed  by  Captain  A.  Kok,  and  sold  to  the  Free 
State  Government  by  the  Griqua  Government  of  Philippolis,  and 
have  by  that  purchase  become  the  indisputable  property  of  the  Free 
State  Government. 

u  The  Commission  believes  they  have  obtained  such  written  proof 
as  conclusively  establishes  the  fact  that  Cornelius  Kok  did  govern, 
and  Waterboer  never  governed,  this  part  of  Griqua  land  to  the  north  of  the 
Vaal  River ;  that  Cornelius  Kok  before  his  death  made  over  the 
government  to  Adam  Kok,  Captain  of  Philippolis,  who  first  gave 
liberty  to  his  people  to  sell  their  farms  to  white  people,  and  after- 
wards, by  his  representative,  sold  the  grounds  formerly  governed 
by  Cornelius  Kok,  as  well  as  those  of  himself,  to  the  Free  State  for 
a  fixed  price.  .  ." 

Signed  by 
Dated  at  "  Abraham  Moosfontein,    J  "VaxSoelex, 

December  IMh,  1863."  [  J.  G.  Siebert, 


When  one  comes  to  consider  the  great  trouble  and 
the  continual  solicitude  ever  displayed  by  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  Orange  Free  State  to  ascertain  its  just 


'ft' 

L 


I  Hi  STRENGTH    OF   THE    I'KKi:   STAT1        •■-!.. 

rights,  no  less  than  to  avoid  infringing  upon  those  of 
its  weak  and  helpless,  though  highly  offensive  and 
undesirable,  neighbour,  Waterboer,  the  morevindignan1 

must  any  honest  Englishman  feel  at  the  treatment 
to  which  that  State  has  been  subjected  in  the 
matter  of  the  diamond  fields  by  his  own  Government 
officials. 

AVith  Mr.  W.  0.  Corner's  statement  we  conclude  the 
oral  evidence  given  both  at  Nooitgedacht  in  1870,  and 
before  the  Commission  at  Campbell,  in  18G3,  in  support 
of  the  right  and  title  of  the  ( Grange  Free  State  to  the 
grounds  of  the  late  Cornelius  Kok,  known  as  the 
Campbell  lands,  north  of  the  Vaal  River.  Comment 
thereon  seems  quite  needless,  especially  as  those  de- 
clarations still  stand  unshaken  and  unassailed,  and  all 
are  so  precise  and  intelligible,  so  very  positive  and  de- 
finite upon  the  point  we  have  striven  to  prove  by  this 
chapter,  viz.,  the  fact  that  the  late  Cornelius  Kok 
ruled  and  governed  the  Campbell  grounds  as  an 
absolute  and  independent  (  hief. 

The  twelve  documents  referred  to  as  submitted  to 
the  Commission  by  Mr.  AY.  O.  Corner  arc  appended 
to  this  chapter  in  the  form  of  an  annexure.  The  ori- 
ginals are  in  that  gentleman's  possession,  and  were 
obtained  or  received  by  him  whilst  serving  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  Koks  in  an  official  capacity.  They  are 
every  one  letters  to  Cornelius  Kok,  all  but  two  being 
from  both  Adam  Kok  and  Waterboer  (which  is  an 
invaluable  fact  in  the  present  controversy);  and  it  will 
be  seen  that  each  document  is  addressed  to  Cornelius 
Kok  pa  the  Chief  and  C>i/>i<>i>i  of  Campbell, 


ANNEXURE.  147 

Annexuke   to   Chapter  VII. 
Being  copies  of  original  documents  possessed  by  Mr,  W. 
0.    Corner j    and  produced  by  him   at  the   meeting    at 
Xooitgedacht. 

No.  1.  [Translation.] 

"  Philippolis,  May  31,  1854. 

"  To  the  Chief  Cornelis  Kok  and  his  Raad  (Council). 

"By  this  we  wish  to  bring  to  your  notice  the  present  state  of  our 
country.  You  will  know  the  proposal  of  Her  Majesty's  Commis- 
sioner, Sir  George  Clerk,  to  us,  when  he  left  this  country,  that  the 
Griqua  nation  totally  declined  his  proposal  to  sell  farms  in  the  line 
to  farmers,  &c. 

"I  am  sorry  to  tell  you  that,  after  Sir  George  Clerk  left,  eight 
farms  have  already  been  sold  to  boers  by  the  Griqua  nation,  and  the 
sale  is  confirmed  by  the  Landrost  of  Sannah's  Poort,  contrary  to 
our  law. 

"There  are  also  about  forty  farms  bespoken  by  the  farmers,  with 
some  Griquas.  Now,  we  don't  know  what  to  do.  If  we  try  to 
hinder  it,  it  might  bring  on  a  war ;  therefore  we  wish  you  to  tell 
us  your  thoughts.  We  will  be  pleased  with  your  presence  and  some 
of  your  Eaad  at  Philippolis.  The  position  of  our  country  requires 
of  us  to  ask  you  earnestly  to  be  present  with  your  Councillors  to 
consult  with  us — to  convey  your  mind  to  the  preservation  of  our 
country.  We  will  be  glad  if  you  can  be  here  as  soon  as  possible. 
We  have  also  invited  the  other  allies. 

"  I  remain,  your  upright  friend, 

"ADAM  KOK,  Captain. 

"  It  is  not  uncertain  that  war  will  arise  if  there  is  hindrance,  and 
prevent  the  boers  from  taking  the  farms.  We  sit  deep  in  the  middle 
and  far  off." 


No.  2.  [Translation.] 

Extracts : — 

"  Melkbokfontein,  January  3,  1854. 
"To  the  Captain  Nicls.  Kok,  my  brother, — 

"I  acquaint  you  of  the  cases  you  did  not  hear  of  before  in  the 
time  that  my  father  lived.    Old  Ambral  Lambert,  already  a  captain, 


!4S 


DOCUM EN T  A  RY    EV IDENCE  : 


was  a  good,  intelligent  man.  At  that  time  was  the  minister  called 
Nchnemelun  with  him.  Then  the  country  was  barren;  and  then 
Captain  Cornelis  Kok  made  war  against  the  Pienaars.  .  .  . 
Even  the  Captain  Cornelis  oppressed  his  own  people  and  plun- 
dered. .  .  Dear  brother,  I  wish  to  make  a  treaty  with  my  friends, 
and  I  shall  await  the  answer.  My  dear  brother,  what  do  you  think 
of  all  these  cases  ?  Of  the  answer  of  the  captain,  Jan  Bloem,  he 
will  do  his  best  to  send  the*  answer  of  the  Captain.  So  can  my 
brother.  My  brother  will  also  hear  from  the  Captain  Adam  Kok 
what  I  wrote  to  him,  and  also  to  the  Captain  Klaas  Waterboer.  I 
have  written  the  same  up  to  him.  I  am  persecuted  by  these 
captains ;  they  now  look  for  the  Damara  Captain,  whom,  with  me, 
together,  they  try  to  plunder.  He  is  a  person  whom  I  made  a 
treaty  with. 

"  You  be  greeted  by  me,  the  friend  of  you, 

"  JONKER  AFRIKANER,  Captain." 


No.  3.  [Extract  from  Translation  of  letter.] 

"GriquaTown,  10th  April,  1854. 
"To  the  Captain  C.  Kok,  Campbell. 

"  To  the  Captain, — Dear  Captain  and  uncle,  by  this  I  have  the 
honour  to  send  you  these  few  lines,  to  mention  to  you  about  the 
circumstances  and  the  state  of  things  in  the  vicinity  of  Philippolis, 
on  the  16th  day  of  March.  Her  Majesty's  Commissioner,  Sir  George 
Russell  Clerk,  arrived  at  Philippolis,  on  his  way  to  the  Colony, 
with  his  people,  who  were  then  leaving  the  Sovereignty,  where  he, 
the  following  day,  requested  the  Captain  to  have  a  meeting,  which 
was  agreed  to.  After  the  meeting  had  been  together,  Sir  George 
Clerk  then  made  a  proposal  to  the  Captain,  that  he  meant  Adam 
Kok  should  allow  the  land  to  be  publicly  sold  to  the  boers ;  that  it 
would  be  all  that  would  bring  peace  into  the  country,  as  he  has  now 
given  the  country  to  the  Boer  Government,  from  the  banks  of  the 
Vaal  River  to  the  banks  of  the  Zwart  (Orange)  River,  and  this 
treaty  between  them  has  been  broken.   .  ." 


No.  4.  [Translation.] 

"  Fhilippolis,  13th  February,  1851. 
1  k  To  Mr.  Cornelis  Kok,  Chief  of  Campbell. 

11  Sir, — Contents  as  follows  :  That  the  undersigned  was  recently  at 


PRODUCED    BY    MR.    W.    O.    CORNER.  149 

Bloemfontein,  to  see  Sir  George  Clerk,  and  lie  advised  me  to  sell 
the  farms  within  the  line  to  the  boers,  as  peace  between  us  would 
then  be  restored. 

"  A  meeting  was  held,  but  the  boers  declined  the  offer,  and  said  to 
my  people  that,  if  circumstances  needed,  they  would  even  lay  down 
their  lives. 

"  Your  true  friend, 

"ADAM  KOK,  Captain." 


No.  5.  [Translation.] 

"Philippolis,  12th  May,  1853." 

"  To  the  Chief  of  Campbell  Grounds,  Cornelis  Kok. 

"  Sir, — By  this  I  have  to  acquaint  you  that  we  will  not  be  able  to 
have  the  desired  Griqua  meeting,  as  the  boers,  according  to  report, 
are  now  prepared  to  go  to  war  with  Mahura.  The  Friend  says  that 
there  is  already  war,  and  the  boers  have  lost  ten  men ;  we  are  getting 
ready  for  the  journey  to  Campbell  and  Griqua  Town,  according  to 
our  former  letters.  If  it  is  the  truth,  the  report  in  the  Friend,  we 
know  not ;  it  was  here  said  so. 

"With  respects,  your  obedient  servant, 

"ADAM  KOK,  Kaptyn." 


No.  6.  [Translation.] 

"Philippolis,  22nd  August,  1853. 

"  To  the  Captain  Cornelius  Kok,  Chief  of  Campbell. 

"  Dear,  Captain, — We  feel  it  our  duty  to  give  you  timely  notice 
that  we  have  heard  that  the  Sovereignty  is  to  be  abandoned  by  the 
English.  The  Commissioner  who  came  from  England  has  arrived 
at  Bloemfontein. 

' '  We  have  not  yet  received  letters  from  him,  but  we  expect  him  in 
our  midst  daily. 

"  The  moment  he  arrives,  or  when  we  shall  meet  him,  we  will  be 
able  to  write  you  further  on  our  circumstances  and  our  ideas. 

"  We  know  not  what  result  these  circumstances  may  bring,  but  we 
can  be  sure  of  it,  and  expect  great  changes  to  take  place,  that  will 
save  our  interests  as  nations ;  therefore  it  is  highly  necessary  that 


150  DOCUMENTARY    EV 1 1  >ENCE  : 

our  understanding — as  a  nation  and  a  people — should  in  the  present 
times  be  known. 

"It  will  highly  please  us  to  receive  an  armed  force  from  you,  as 
soon,  and  that  you  will  acquaint  to  us  your  ideas  about  these 
weighty  circumstances. 

"  I  have  the  honour  to  be, 

"  Your  obedient  servant, 

"ADAM  KOK,  Kaptyn." 


No.  7.   [Translation.] 

"  Griqua  Town,  20th  September,  1853. 
"For  the  Captain  Cornelis  Kok. 

"Dear  Captain, — Contents  respecting  some  horses  stolen  from  a 
Mr.  Abraham  Wilge,  of  Beervlcy. 

"N.  WATEBBOEK,  Kaptyn." 


No.  8. 

"  Griqua  Town,  9th  May,  1853. 
"Dear    Sir   and  Uncle, — Contents  respecting  the  purchase  l>y 
"Waterboer  of  a  cart  from  Cornells  Kok. 

"  I  have  the  honour  to  be,  with  regard, 
"Your  sincere  servant, 

"N.  WATEEBOEE,  Captain." 


No.  9. 

"  Hiilippolis,  9th  April,  1801. 
11  To  Captain  Cornelis  Kok. 

"  Sir, — As  I  have  written  you  a  letter,  as  also  the  other  Chiefs,  to 
meet  you  at  Lekatlong,  on  Saturday,  the  12th  instant,  I  have  to 
inform  you  with  regret  that  business  has  greatly  hindered  me  that 
I  am  not  able  to  come  there  myself  according  to  promise.  But  I 
have  received  tidings  with  much  joy,  that  you  and  Jantjo  have 
arranged  the  difference  which  existed  between  you,  and  that  peace 
has  been  established.     I  would  request  you  and  the  other  Chiefs  to 


PRODUCED   BY   MR.    \V.    O.    CORNER.  151 

^preserve  peace  as  much  as  possible  with  each  other ;  never  allow 
war  to  he  heard  of  amongst  you. 

■ '  I  am.  Sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

"ADAM  KOK,  Captain." 


No.   10. 

"  30th  July,  1840. 
"  To  Captain  Cornelis  Kok,  Captain,  from  Christian  Bock. 
"  Contents  :  Application  for  a  farm. 


No.  11. 

**  PhiHppaUs,  1 8th  January,  1843. 
•  To  Captain  Cornelius  Kok,  Captain  of  Campbell. 
"  Dear  Uncle, — Contents  :  Respecting  a  farm  of  Willem  Vry. 

"  Captain  ADAM  KOK." 


No.  12. 

"  Grriqua  Town,  3rd  August,  1848. 
"  Letter  from  A.  Waterboer,  Captain,  to 
"  Captain  C.  Kok. 
"Worthy  Friend, — Contents:  Appeal  to  work  together  against 
the  boers" 


£52  waterboer's  case. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

Analysis   of   the   Documentary  Evidence  Produced* 
by  waterboer,  at   the  meeting  at  nooitgedacht, 
in  support  of  his  claim  to  the  former  territory 
of  the  late  cornelius  kok. 

Waterboer's  Case. — Analysis  Thereof. — Documentary  Evidence 
in  Support. — Annexures  Nos.  1,  2,  3,  and  4. — "Annexure. 
No.  5." — An  Alleged  Treaty  Between  A.  Waterboer  and 
A.  Kok,  in  1838;  its  Vital  Importance  to  Waterboer's  Case  ; 
its  Three  Main  Clauses  Eeviewed  in  Detail. — The  Alleged 
Division  of  all  Griqua  Land  Between  A.  Waterboer  and 
A.  Kok  Disproved  ;  also  the  Line  from  Bamah  to  Platberg, 
as  Claimed  by  Waterboer  and  Co. — General  Arguments 
Against  the  Genuineness  of  the  Pretended  Treaty. — Treaty 
Between  Cornelius  Kok  and  Jan  Bloem. 

Having*  concluded  the  viva  voce  testimony  forthcoming- 
at  the  Nooitgedacht  meeting,  it  is  necessary  to  now 
analyse  the  documentary  evidence  produced  on  either 
side  ;  giving  to  the  plaintiff,  as  before,  the  preference, 
and  again  commencing  with  the  statement  of  his  argu- 
ment, case,  or  object,  viz. :  — 

1 .  That  Cornelius  Kok  was  not  an  independent  chief, 
but  Waterboer's  under  officer  or  subordinate. 

2.  That  the  territory  known  as  that  of  Cornelius 
Kok — the  Campbell  grounds,  as  well  as  such  part  of 
South  Adamantia  as  fell  within  a  line  drawn  from. 
Ramah  on  the  Orange  to  Platberg  on  the  Vaal  River.. 
— really  belonged  to  him,  Waterboer. 


THE    MAIN    SPRING    OF    THE    CASE.  153> 

I  must  also  premise  that  as  it  would  be  a  great  waste 
of  time,  and  would  swamp  this  work  with  a  mass  of 
utterly  irrelevant  matter,  to  quote  or  discuss  seriatim 
every  paper  and  documentary  reference  produced  by 
Waterboer's  advisers  and  coadjutors,  I  have  only 
selected  those  really  bearing  upon  the  points  at  issue. 
That  I  have  so  chosen  and  reviewed  all  such  evidence, 
and  only  excepted  irrelevant,  unimportant  papers  and 
parts  of  papers,  I  pledge  my  honour,  and  challenge 
investigation. 

ANALYSIS  OF  WATERBOER'S  CASE. 

The  documents  here  noticed  still  constitute  Water- 
boer's entire  case,  and  although  in  possession  of  and 
regularly  receiving  the  latest  official  intelligence,  I  am 
not  aware  of  any  fresh  evidence  in  addition  thereto. 

The  first  four  documents  laid  over  by  Mr.  Attorney 
Grant,  at  Nooitgedacht,  in  support  of  Waterboer's  case, 
consisted  of  certain  pages  of  the  Blue  Book  of  1837; 
the  Blue  Book,  "  Kafir  Tribes,  23rd  June,  1851 ;"  and 
several  Missionary  Society  Reports,  1813 — 15  ;  all  un- 
important,— except  in  so  far  as  the  imaginary  beati- 
fication of  old  Andries  Waterboer  and  several  other 
equally  vain,  past,  and  mythical  shining  Griqua  lights 
are  concerned. 

1.  But  "  Annexure  No.  5  "  is  a  far  more  portentous 
and  pretentious  affair.  Indeed,  it  constitutes  about  the 
very  end  and  beginning,  the  primum  mobile  of  his 
claims  to  the  Cornelius  Kok  lands — including  the 
diamond  fields.  All  other  documents  on  this  side  are 
but  produced  in  support  of  this.  His  entire  case  is 
based  and  founded  thereon ;  disprove  it,  and  the  claim 
is  destroyed  in  to  to  ! 


154  SCHEME   OF   WATEBBOEB  AND   CO. 

This  document  is  rather  pompous,  hut  ambiguous  in 
title,  being  termed, — 

u  Articles  of  an  Agreement  let  ween  the  Griqua  Chiefs,  A*\Waterhoer 

and  Adam  Kok,  and  the  People." 

Of  this  notice,  or  manifesto,  which  professes  to  have 
been  "  done  at  Griqua  Town,  the  9th  November,  1838," 
and  to  be  signed  by  the  chiefs  "  A.  Waterboer  and 
A.  Kok,"  only  three  clauses  out  of  its  thirteen,  viz., 
the  3rd,  4th,  and  5th,  have  any  direct  bearing  on  the 
case,  or  have  ever  been  referred  to  and  quoted  either 
pro  or  con. 

"Waterboer  and  his  supporters  declare  that  these 
three  clauses  prove  that  all  Griqua  land  was  divided 
between  old  Andries  Waterboer  and  Adam  Kok ;  they 
argue,  moreover,  from  the  vaguest  of  vague  and  utterly 
unintelligible  definitions  of  boundaries,  that  the  portion 
of  Griqua  land  so  allotted  to  Andries  Waterboer,  not 
only  embraced  the  whole  of  the  Griqua  territory  north 
of  the  Vaal  River,  but  also  all  that  on  the  south  bank 
(South  Adamant ia)  included  within  a  line  drawn  from 
Raman  on  the  Orange  river,  to  David's  Graf  on  the 
Rict,  or  at  the  junction  of  Riet  and  Modder  rivers, 
and  thence  on  to  Platberg  on  the  Vaal  River. 

From  Ramah  this  line  follows  about  a  true  north 
north-east  course  to  Platberg,  and  is,  in  fact,  none 
other  than  what  wc  have  seen  was  really  the  original 
boundary  line  between  Adam  and  Cornelius  Kok. 
Waterboer's  dodge  is  palpable; — by  pretending  that 
Cornelius  Kok  was  his  subordinate,  the  lands  north  of 
that  line  would  revert  to  him  [or,  rather,  should  have 
done  so,  for,  in  point  of  fact,  as  we  have  also  seen,  they 
did  not]  ;   but  at  all  events  lie  would  have  a  fair  prim  t 


CRITICAL    ANALYSIS    OF    "  ANNEXUEE   NO.    5/'        155 

facte  ease,  depending,  however,  entirely  upon  the 
question  of  Cornelius  Kok's  dependence  or  indepen- 
dence. 

As  clauses  3  and  4  arc  similar  we  will  deal  with 
both  together : — 

"  3.  The  land  belonging  to  the  two  chiefs  and  tlieir  people  shall  be 
called  Griqua  land,  and  shall  be  governed  by  the  two  present  known 
chiefs,  namely,  Andries  Waterboer,  of  Griqua  Town,  and  Adam 
TCok,  of  Fhilippolis. 

"  4.  The  Land  or  country  will  be  divided  in  two  great  portions, 
and  governed  by  two  different  governments,  each  government  to 
have  its  own  lands." 

For  the  sake  of  argument,  we  will  admit  that  this 
treaty  or  agreement  is  not  a  pure  invention,  but  went 
beyond  a  mere  draft,  and  once  existed,  and  so  will 
deal  with  its  points,  and  the  inferences  derived  there- 
from by  the  robbers  of  the  diamond  fields,  categorically 
and  an  scrieux. 

1.  With  regard  to  the  conclusion  jumped  at  so 
hastily  by  Waterboer  &  Co.,  that  all  Griqua  land  was 
included  and  divided  by  this  agreement,  I  venture  to 
maintain,  in  the  most  positive  manner,  that  neither  in 
letter  nor  in  spirit  does  it  do  anything  of  the  sort. 

(a.)  Clause  1,  on  which  the  remaining  twelve  are 
based,  states,  u  The  chiefs  and  inhabitants  of  Griqua 
Town  and  Philippolis  will  be  considered  as  a  nation,  and 
also  a  connection  with  each  other."  But  not  a  word  is 
said  about  Campbell,  its  (/rounds,  or  its  people  !  It  is, 
indeed,  quite  clearly  stated  in  clauses  3  and  4  that  it 
is  certain  lands  "  belonging  to  the  two  chiefs  "  which  alone 
are  under  consideration :  neither  directly  nor  in- 
directly is  either  word  or   allusion  made  to  Campbell 


156     WATERBOEK    AM)    CO.'fi   ARGUMENT    FALLACIOUS. 

and  its  chief,  Cornelius  Kok  !     And  "  the  two  chiefs" 
are  named  as  "A.  Waterboer  and  A.  Kok." 

(b.)  "  The  land  or  country,"  according  to  clause  4y 
to  "  be  divided  into  two  great  portions,"  &c,  is  specifi- 
cally stated  to  be  that  of  "the  two  chiefs;"  but  not 
that  of  Cornelius  Kok,  whose  name  is  never  mentioned 
in  the  document. 

(c.)  Moreover,  from  the  very  tense  in  which  the 
composition  is  written  it  is  evidently  only  a  proposed 
arrangement;  the  terms  of  which  either  "  shall  be"  or 
"will  be"  carried  out,  but,  at  the  time  to  ere  not;  for 
it  lacks  the  necessary  proclamation  as  a  past  or  present 
official  enactment  by  which  alone  it  could  become  law, 
and  no  evidence  is  adduced  to  show  that  its  stipula- 
tions and  agreements  were  ever  executed. 

(d.)  The  utter  exception  of  Captain  Cornelius  Kok 
and  his  territory  of  Campbell,  &c,  is  very  singular 
and  conspicuous ;  and  I  do  not  think  that  I  am  strain- 
ing logical  sequence  when  I  say  that  it  was  palpably 
because  neither  he  nor  his  lands  had  anything  to  do 
with  the  proposed  treaty. 

(<?.)  Even  were  the  document  a  genuine  one,  were  the 
whole  country  inhabited  by  Griquas  meant,  and  were 
clauses  3  and  4,  originally,  at  the  drafting  of  the  treaty, 
quite  bona  fide;  as  a  matter  of  fact,  it  never  was  executed 
or  maintained ;  for  Cornelius  Kok  certainly  did  rule 
as  an  independent  chief  at  Campbell,  did  dispose  of  its 
grounds  as  he  pleased,  and  did  make  over  his  terri- 
tory to  Adam  Kok,  who  did  sell  to  the  Orange  Free 
State  what  he  had  so  succeeded  to  (although  this  latter 
iact  is  noiv  disputed). 

2.     The  boundary  clause  must  now  be  investigated. 


THE  BOUNDARY  CLAUSE  WORTHLESS.       157 

"  4.  The  boundary  of  the  north-east*  portion  (ruled  by  Adam  Kok,  of 
Philippolis)  will  be  from  Eamah,  on  the  west,b  along  the  boundary 
cf  the  colony,  eastwards,0  to  Cornets  Spuint,  over  the  Caledon  Eiver, 
and  northwards  to  Modder  Eiver.d  The  boundary  of  the  western'" 
portion,  ruled  by  Andries  Waterboer  at  Grriqua  Town,  will  be  from 
Eamah,  on  the  east,  *  along  the  boundary  of  the  colony  westwards  to  Kheis, 
and  northwards  to  PIatbcry.'n° 

The  grave  errors  and  inaccurate  statements  of  fact 
in  this  clause  arc  such  as  to  cause  sufficiently  strong- 
technical  objections  to  make  it  worthless — especially 
eonsidering  that  no  corroborative  evidence  as  to  tho 
actual  execution  and  maintenance  of  the  alleged  treaty 
is  forthcoming. 

(«.)  In  the  first  place,  by  referring  to  diagram  C, 
Chapter  IV. ,  it  will  be  seen  that  instead  of  being  the 
"north-east"  portion  of  Griqua  land,  Adam  Kok's 
territory  is  the  south-east ;  that  of  Cornelius  Kok  being 
the  north-cast,  though  ! 

(b.)  Instead  of  Eamah  being  "  on  the  west"  of  Adam 
Kok's  territory,  it  forms  just  the  north-west  apex  or 
corner, 

(c.)  The  line  "  along  the  boundary  of  the  colony" 
(the  Orange  Eiver)  does  not  run  "  eastwards"  but 
south-east. 

(d.)  As  this  vague  boundary  of  Adam  Kok  ends 
"  northwards  to  Modder  Eiver"  (a  stream  over  200 
miles  long),  and  begins  "  from  Eamah,"  it  will  be  seen 
that  no  boundary  line  is  given  to  connect  those  two 
widely-separated  points.  But  we  have  seen  by  evi- 
dence in  Chapters  III.  and  IV.,  and  by  diagram  B,  in 
Chapter  III.,  that  the  territory  of  Cornelius  KoJc  joined 
that  of  Adam  Kok  ;  that  a  line  to  as  made,  in  1840,  betivcen 
them,  from  Ramah  (N.E.)  to  David's  Graf  on  the  Riet, 
or  junction  of  the  Rict  and  Modder  rivers ;    and  that  this 


158  A    DEFINITION    DILKMAIA. 

demarcation  is  further  proved  a  ad  stated  by  the  Maitland 
treaty  in  1840 ;  though  not  a  particle  of  evidence 
that  Waterboer  ever  owned  territory  along  that  line 
can  be  found  outside  this  precious  "  Annexurc 
No.  5." 

(<?.)  Having  regard  to  the  known  territory  of  Adam 
Kok,  and  the  line  of  the  Modder  River,  instead  of 
Waterboer's  ground  being  the  "  western  portion"  it  is 
the  north-western. 

(/.)  As  "  Ramah  on  the  east"  is  taken  as  Waterboer's 
eastern  starting-point  (in  reality,  it  was  the  south- 
eastern), of  course  it  would  be  absurd  and  utterly  incon- 
sistent for  any  of  his  other  defined  boundaries  to 
extend  to  the  eastward  of  that.  How,  then,  are  we  to 
reconcile,  or,  indeed,  comprehend  the  sentence  "from 
Ramah  on  the  cast,  along  the  boundary  of  the  colony 
westwards  to  Kheis,  and  northwards  to  Platberg  ? " 
Platberg  on  the  Hirer  Vaal,  immediately  opposite  to 
Hebron  (and  the  point  now  claimed  by  Waterboer  and 
his  coadjutors  as  the  place  meant  by  the  term  "  and 
northwards  to  Platberg  ")  being  {true)  east  and  by  north 
from  Kheis  !  It  will  be  seen  that  the  boundaries  men- 
tioned in  clause  5  of  the  "agreement"  run  on  con- 
secutively, Adam  Kok's  commencing  at  Ramah,  and 
proceeding  to  the  right,  or  cast,  Waterboer's  also 
beginning  at  Ramah,  and  thence  proceeding  to  the 
left,  or  west. 

(//.)  We  are  landed  at  Kheis,  but  how  to  get  "  north- 
wards to  IHatberg  "  is  the  difficulty. 

Waterboer's  friends  who  desired  the  diamond  fields 
for  themselves,  perceiving  this  dilemma,  act  thus  :  they 
first  of  all  break  the  hitherto  and  otherwise  regular 
succession  and  sequence  of  the  boundary  lines  by  going 


CONFUSED    DESCRIPTION    OF   BOUNDARIES.  159* 

back  again  from  Kheis  eastwards  to  Ramah,  and  start 
afresh  from  that  ptace  so  as  to  get  "  northwards  to  Plat- 
berg,"  the  hill  opposite  Hebron  !  So  they  go  from 
Ramah  northwards  to  Platberg — a  line  they  expected 
to  nicely  cut  off  from  the  Orange  Free  State  all  the 
diamond  fields,  and  give  those  places  to  them, — in- 
stead of  proceeding  according  to  the  order  and  wording 
of  the  alleged  "  agreement "  on  which  they  seek  to 
establish  Waterboer' s  right,  from  Kheis  northwards  to 
Platberg ! 

Even  by  this  unauthorized  misinterpretation  of  the 
so-called  "  Treaty  of  1838,"  they  go  many  miles  to  the 
cast  of  Ramah;  so  that  this  place  no  longer  forms 
their  eastern  point  (as  the  treaty  asserts  it  was),  but 
becomes  changed  to  Platberg. 

These  clever  gentlemen,  moreover,  seem  to  forget 
an  old  proverb,  not,  it  is  true,  a  very  polished  one,  but 
very  apropos  nevertheless ;  and  which  always  expresses 
that  sentiment  of  fair  play  and  justice  to  which  they 
seem  strangers.  The  aphorism  runs  that  "  What  is 
sauce  for  the  goose  is  sauce  for  the  gander."  Con- 
densing Messrs.  Waterboer  and  Co.  into  the  goose,  we 
will  give  some  of  the  same  sauce  to  Adam  Kok  as  the 
gander.  We  will  also  deal  with  his  treaty-defined 
boundary  as  they  dealt  with  Waterboer's.  Instead  of 
going  from  "  Cornet  Spruit,"  "  northwards  to  Modeler 
River/'  we  will  go  back  again  to  Ramah,  anel  start 
afresh  from  there  "  northwards  to  Modeler  River." 
To  elo  this  we  have  precisely  as  much  right  as  they 
have,  and  what,  then,  becomes  of  their  fabricated  line 
for  Waterboer,  from  Ramah  to  the  Platberg  on  the 
Vaal  River,  which  is  really  more  than  a  hundred  miles  from 
any  ground  ever  either  otvned  or  occupied  hj  Waterboer 's 


160         WATERBOEE   A XI.)   CO.'g   CLAIM   UNTENABLE. 

Griquas  ?  Why,  that  line  is  cut  off  and  barred  at  its 
commencement  by  Adam  Kok's  line  going  "north- 
wards to  Modder  River,"  which,  from  the  mutual 
starting-point,  Ramah,  goes  due  north,  or  exactly  at 
an  angle  of  40^  within  the  line  invented  for  Waterbocr  ! 
because,  instead  of  going  straight  on  to  Platberg 
(which  bears  due  N.N.E.,  or  N.  22u  80 '  E.  of  Ramah),  in 
order  to  get  still  further  to  the  east,  and  so  make  sure 
of  the  diamond  fields  (the  dry  diggings  lying  within 
a  very  few  miles  of  this  line),  they  literally  folloiv  the  line 
of  1840  hclivcen  Adam  and  Cornelius  Kok,  and  deflect 
considerably  to  the  east,  so  as  to  get  to  the  point  known 
as  David's  Graf,  which  bears  N.  40°  E.  from  Ramah ! 

Taking  Waterboer's  boundary  as  described  verbatim 
by  the  alleged  treaty,  from  "  Kheis  and  northwards  to 
Platberg,"  we  can  only  get  north-eastwards  to  what 
are  now  generally  known  as  the  Langeberg  hills,  but 
which  certainly  have  been  anciently  known  as  Platberg 
also ;  which  would  give  a  north-west  instead  of  a  south- 
east, boundary,  and  at  the  same  time  perfectly  accord 
with  the  consistent  order  and  method  of  enumeration 
of  the  boundaries  in  clause  5.  That  Langeberg  has 
been  known  as  Platberg,  and  has  been  mentioned  as 
such  in  describing  Waterboer's  boundaries,  is  sufficiently 
proved  in  the  evidence  given  by  Mr.  W.  0.  Corner,  at 
Nooitgcdacht,  who  makes  the  following  statement: — 

"  The  line  from  Carries  "  (another  name  for  Koukonop  Drift) — 
11  Platberg"  (evidently  Langeberg),  "was  the  line  between  TJ^afrr- 
hoer  and  Campbettt  and  that  between  A.  Kok  and  C.  Kok,  between 
Platberg  and  Ramah.  /  mean  Platberg  on  the  river  about  five  hours 
from  where  we  now  are  "  (Nooitgedacht).  As  far  as  I  know,  Waterboer 
had  no  ground  from  Platberg  to  Ramah." 

But  a  much  more  plausible  and  feasible  theory  as  to 


"northwards  to  platberg."  161 

the  real  direction  of  this  verbal  line  from  somewhere 
"  northwards  to  Platberg,"  is  this -.—Starting,  as  Water- 
boer  and  Co.  choose  to,  from  Ramah  (instead  of  going 
on  from  Kheis),  we  would  proceed  about  due  N.W.  and 
by  N.,  or  N.  33°  45 'by  W.,  to  the  most  northerly  point 
of  the  Langeberg  hills— the  "  Platberg  "  of  the  witness 
W.  0.  Corner — and  all  the  way  we  would  go  over  exactly 
the  line  defined  in  Diagrams  A  and  Z>,  and  so  repeatedly 
described  already  as  that  which  was  made  in  1820,  by  the 
chief,  Adam  Kok,  between  Campbell  and  Griqua  Town; 
that  is  to  say,  between  Cornelius  Kok  and  Andries  Water- 

doer. 

This  is  the  only  way  in  which  the  term  "  northwards 
to  Platberg"  can  be  reconciled  with  well-known  and 
existing  facts— moreover,  as  we  see,  it  would  coincide 
and   agree   with   an  old   and   indisputable  boundary 

line. 

3.  The  general  arguments  per  contra,  as  a  set-off  to 
this  alleged  treaty  on  the  side  of  the  Orange  Free 
State,  are  both  numerous  and  forcible.  Still  admitting 
its  existence  as  a  genuine  affair,  I  deny  that  it  ever 
went  further  than  a  mere  draft  of  a  proposed  arrange- 
ment. But  even  to  admit  for  a  moment  that  it  once 
did  prevail,  it  is  quite  certain  that  whatever  boundaries 
may  at  that  distant  period  have  been  decided  upon  have 
never  been  in  force  since  the  present  Waterboer  suc- 
ceeded his  father  as  chief  of  Griqua  Town,  and  that,  in 
fact,  the  treaty  must  have  become  obsolete  many  years 
ago. 

It  is  quite  possible  that  some  such  treaty  may  have 
been  entertained,  for  in  1837,  the  year  before  its  pro- 
fessed date,  it  is  well  known  that  Cornelius  Kok 
aided  Abram  Kok   to  wage  war  against  his  brother, 

M 


162  FACTS   IN   DISPROOF   OF   THE    "  TREATY." 

Adam  Kok;  with  the  object  of  deposing  the  latter 
and  making  Abram  Chief  of  the  Philippolis  Griquas  ; 
old  Dam  Kok,  the  brother  of  Cornelius,  and  father  of 
Adam  and  Abram,  having  lately  died.  Abram  and 
Cornelius  Kok  were  beaten,  Waterboer  supported 
Adam,  and  what  more  likely  than  that  the  two  latter 
should  then  have  agreed  upon  an  alliance  ?  But  we 
also  know,  by  the  testimony  of  Hendrik  Hendrikse 
and  others  who  took  part  in  those  events,  that  Cor- 
nelius Kok  was  after  all  pardoned  by  the  victorious 
Adam,  his  nephew,  through  the  "  intercession  "  of  the 
former's  "  friends  and  councillors;"  so  that  he  was 
not  deprived  of  his  chieftainship  over  Campbell,  but, 
on  the  contrary,  was  specially  retained  and  confirmed 
therein  by  the  making  of  the  line  of  demarcation  from 
Eamah  to  David's  Graf ! 

4.  No  proof  whatever,  not  an  iota  of  corroborative 
evidence  as  to  the  execution,  maintenance,  and  fulfil- 
ment of  the  alleged  treaty  has  been  adduced  by 
Waterboer  and  Co.,  and  surely  something  more  than 
the  mere  word  of  that  three  or  four-quarter  caste  semi- 
barbarian  is  required  to  refute  the  overwhelming  array 
of  evidence  both  oral  and  documentary  upon  the  other 
side,  in  proof  of  the  undoubted  fact  that  Waterboer 
never  occupied  the  ground  in  question  ;  that  he  never 
exercised  even  the  slightest  authority  or  suzerainship 
over  Cornelius  Kok  and  the  territory  under  the  latter' s 
sole  rule ;  that  neither  Waterboer  nor  any  of  the 
Griqua  Town  Griquas  ever  held,  occupied,  or  were 
recognized  as  even  residing  upon  any  ground  within 
one  hundred  miles  of  the  boundary  point  (Platberg  on  the 
Vaal)  now  claimed ;  and  that  always,  from  the  day  of 
his  appointment,   in   1815,  to   the   period,    in    1857, 


ILLEGALITY   OF    "  TREATY  "    OF    1838    IF   GENUINE.    163 

when  he  resigned  his  power  and  Government  into  the 
hands  of  Adam  Kok,  Cornelius  Kok  was  literally  and 
actually  the  sole  and  undisputed  paramount  and  inde- 
pendent Chief  or  Captain  of  Campbell  and  its  adjacent 
grounds ! 

5.  Another  important  objection  to  the  value,  legality, 
and  genuineness  of  the  alleged  treaty  is  the  fact  that 
none  of  the  surrounding  chiefs  and  states  were  con- 
sulted. It  does  not  appear,  nor  has  Waterboer 
asserted,  that  such  was  done.  The  treaty  really  takes 
the  form  of  a  proposed  nudum  pactum  between  two 
native  chiefs  as  to  their  arrangement  or  definition  of 
their  territorial  boundaries,  in  a  private  and  surrepti- 
tious manner,  without  seeking  or  obtaining  the  assent, 
countenance,  or  approval,  without  even  communicating 
the  intention,  to  those  neighbouring  powers  and 
territorial  chieftains  who  certainly  had  an  imprescript- 
ible right  to  be  not  alone  advised,  but  to  be  consulted, 
and  to  have  as  much  to  say  in  the  matter  as  the  two 
alleged  cosignatories  and  contractors  themselves.  As 
it  is  quite  certain  that  this  course  was  not  adopted, 
even  if  genuine,  the  treaty  was  illegal.  The  surround- 
ing states  and  chiefs  were  left  in  complete  ignorance 
of  a  dividing  and  parcelling  out  of  land  which  would 
very  seriously  have  injured  and  invaded  their  inalien- 
able rights,  embracing,  as  the  agreement  did,  large 
tracts  of  country  never  belonging  either  to  Waterboer 
or  Adam  Kok,  nor,  to  this  day,  ever  occupied  by  either  ! 

6.  Even  granting  the  boundaries  mentioned  in  the 
alleged  treaty  to  have  been  really  decided  upon,  in 
1838,  by  the  two  chiefs,  it  never  gave  them  more  than 
a  mere  nominal,  pseudo,  self-styled  right,  for  it  was 
never  acted  upon. 

m  2 


164  RIGHTS    OF   THE   FREE   STATE. 

Indeed,  so  patent  and  irrefragable  as  to  appear  a 
truism  to  those  who  have  studied  and  investigated  the 
subject,  is  the  fact  that  Waterboer  never,  and  Adam 
Kok  only  since  1857,  when  Cornelius  Kok  gave  him 
the  authority,  either  occupied,  settled  by  a  single 
member  of  their  Griqua  subjects,  or  ever  exercised 
any  jurisdiction  over  the  greater  part  of  the  extensive 
territory  now  so  fraudulently  claimed  by  Waterboer, 
and  so  unrighteously  plundered  from  the  Orange  Free 
State  by  the  Cape  Colonial  Government,  by  armed 
force,  ostensibly  in  his  interest ! 

On  the  contrary,  ever  since  1840,  the  white  settlers 
have  been  regularly  and  legally  acquiring  land 
beyond  the  line  now  seized  for  Waterboer  from  Raniah 
to  Platberg  on  the  Vaal  River  ; — ever  since  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  British  Resident's  Court  at  Bloemfontein, 
(now  capital  of  the  Free  State),  in  1846,  and  also  by  the 
terms  of  Sir  P.  Maitland's  treaty,  the  purchase  by 
Free  State  burghers  of  Griqua  land  within  that  line  has 
been  recognized  by  the  British  Government ;  —ever 
since  Sir  Harry  Smith's  proclamation  in  1848  of  the 
Orange  River  Territory  as  a  British  Sovereignty  have 
those  purchases  of  Griqua  Land  upon,  and  west,  and 
north  of  that  line  been  recognized  by  the  ^British 
Government  as  perpetual  leaseholds,  carrying  with 
them  from  the  former  Griqua  chieftain  to  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  Orange  River  Territory,  or  Sovereignty, 
territorial  and  sovereign  rights — for  which  British  land 
certificates  ivere  issued  and  are  still  possessed  ; — ever  since 
the  abandonment  of  the  Sovereignty  by  the  British 
Government  in  February  1854,  the  convention  entered 
into  with  the  people  of  that  territory,  and  the  forma- 
tion of  the  Orange  Free  State,  the  new  Government 


AN  ANALOGOUS   CASE.  165 

thereof  has  been  responsible  by  express  stipulations 
u  that  all  previous  British  subjects  would  be  secured 
in  the  possession  of  their  properties/'  and  from  that 
time  until  the  forcible  seizure  of  the  diamond  fields  by 
British  authorities  such  has  been  done ; — ever  since  the 
making  of  the  Vetberg  line  in  1855  (by  virtue  of  pur- 
chase of  the  ground  from  Cornelius  Kok),  Free  State 
subjects  have  owned  and  occupied  the  land  up  to  that 
line,  and  their  Government  has  exercised  undisputed 
jurisdiction  over  the  territory  so  defined  and  inhabited; 
—  ever  since  the  sale  of  all  remaining  "  open  ground" 
by  Adam  Kok,  in  1861,  the  Government  of  the  Orange 
Free  State  has  alone  been  known,  has  ruled  without 
interference,  and  its  law  courts  have  exercised  supreme, 
unquestioned  jurisdiction  up  to  Albania  (or  the  Vetberg 
line,  its  boundary),  and  to  the  banks  of  the  Vaal 
River  !  All  these  facts  are  undeniably  proved  by  the 
evidence  we  have  previously  quoted  from  the  official 
correspondence  of  the  British  Residents,  Major  Warden 
and  Mr.  Green,  Attorney- General  Porter,  Sir  Harry 
Smith,  Sir  George  Cathcart,  &c. 

7.  To  reason  by  analogy,  if  "  Annexure  No.  5  "  is 
to  hold  good,  so  also  would  any  unattested  copy  of 
any  draft  agreement  Waterboer  might  produce  pur- 
porting to  have  been  entered  into  at  some  equally 
distant  period,  unknown  to  every  other  surrounding 
and  interested  state  or  government,  between  himself 
and  Adam  Kok,  or  any  one  else,  including  and  dividing 
between  themselves  the  whole  of  Africa,  whether 
occupied  by  savages,  unoccupied,  or  held  by  civilized 
white  and  Christian  nations,  providing  British 
bayonets  were  forthcoming  to  support  their  vague, 
unjust,  and  amazingly  preposterous  claim !     In  fact, 


166  NEGATIVE   EVIDENCE. 

the  principle  established  by  the  enforcement  of  the 
alleged  agreement  is  that  it  is  only  necessary  for 
diamonds  or  anything  of  value  to  be  discovered  any- 
where in  South  Africa,  for  Great  Britain  to  step  in, 
and  seize  the  territory,  providing  a  puppet  like  Water- 
boer  can  be  put  up  as  claimant,  and  the  actual  posses- 
sors are  a  comparatively  weak  and  non-military  power 
like  the  Free  State  ! 

That  my  supposition  is  not  extravagant  is  clear,  for 
the  line  of  Ramah  via  David's  Graf  to  Platberg,  now 
held  (upon  the  false  pretence  that  it  is .  for  Waterboer) 
by  the  Cape  Colony  armed  and  mounted  frontier 
police  force  cuts  off  no  less  than  One  Hundred  and 
Forty-three  (143)  Free  State  Farms!  about  half  of  which 
territory  has  been  for  twenty  years,  part  for  various 
periods,  and  the  remainder  for  eleven  years,  to  all 
intents  and  purposes  de  facto  Free  State  soil !  whilst 
of  the  one  hundred  and  forty-three  farms,  thirty-three 
are  held  by  British  land  certificates  granted  (mostly  as  re- 
newals) during  the  period  of  the  Sovereignty  !  * 

8.  After  all,  the  only  sort  of  evidence  to  be  derived 
from  "  Annexure  No.  5  "  is  negative  (a  difficult  thing 
to  prove,  by  all  accounts) ;  as  it  is  sought,  thereby, 
from  the  absence  of  any  mention  of  Cornelius  Kok 
and  his  lands  to  imply  that,  therefore,  he  was  a  subor- 
dinate, and  his  property  and  Chieftainship  were 
Waterboer' s  ! 

9.  Once  more,  per  contra,  as  an  effective  set-off 
against  this  alleged  treaty,  which  (if  an  original 
really  be  in  existence  at  all)  has  been  raked  up  from 
some    long-forgotten   hiding-place,  probably   by   Mr. 

*  Vide  p.  170,  Capetown  Blue  Book,  for  Despatch  from  President 
Brand,  dated  Bloerafontein,  9th  March,  1871. 


TREATY  BETWEEN  C.  KOK  AND  J.  BLOEM.     167 

David  Arnot's  ingenuity,  let  us  consider  another 
document,  also  an  alleged  treaty,  entered  into  betiveen 
Cornelius  Kok  and  Jan  Bloem,  on  the  "  8th  of  August, 
1840." 

Copy  of  this  treaty*  has  been  put  in  evidence  by 
President  Brand  and  the  Executive  Government  of 
the  Orange  Free  State — a  better  authority,  I  venture 
to  opine,  than  the  unsupported  testimony  of  the  Chief, 
Nicolas  Waterboer. 

The  "1st,  2nd,  and  3rd"  clauses  will  be  sufficient 
for  our  purpose  : — 

"  1st.  We  the  undersigned  chiefs  in  council,  accept  of  the  immi- 
grated colonists  now  amongst  us  on  these  grounds  "  (South  Ada- 
mantia)  "  as  our  friends  and  allies.  .  . 

11  2nd.  We  declare  it  is  with  our  consent  that  the  line  (a)  from 
Ramah,  with  a  straight  line  to  the  junction  of  the  Modder  and  Hit 
rivers  "  (the  spot  known  as  David'' s  Graf  J  "  and  thence  on  to  Plat- 
berg  on  the  Vaal  River,  up  along  the  Vaal  Eiver  to  the  Tickwas 
Biver,  has  been  fixed,  which  line  between  our  Northern  tribes 
shall  bo  the  boundary  line  for  the  colonists  herein  alluded  to  .  .  . 

"  3rd.  W©  will  acknowledge  Mr.  A.  Oberholster  as  chief  and 
ruler  over  these  immigrated  colonists,  and  will  ourselves  shew 
every  respect  to  his  field-cornets,  joint  rulers." 

Now  these  clauses  give  the  first  and  only  consistent 
and  accurate  definition  of  the  line  (a)  from  Ramah  to 
David's  Graf,  and  on  to  Platberg  (on  the  Vaal  Eiver), 
to  be  found  in  the  correspondence  and  evidence  on 
either  side.  It  coincides  with  the  evidence  of  all  the 
witnesses  in  favour  of  the  Free  State ;  it  agrees  exactly 
with  the  making  of  the  line  in  the  same  year,  1840 
(see  Diagram  B,  Chap.  Ill,  &c),  between  the  Captains 
Adam  and  Cornelius  Kok ;  with  the  line  as  corrobo- 


*  Vide  p.  137,  Capetown  Blue  Book  (No.  1, 1871),  for  Translated  Copy 
of  this  Treaty. 


168  A   TECHNICAL   OBJECTION. 

rated  by  "  Article  5  "  of  the  Maitland  treaty  in  1846 ; 
and  with  the  treaty  entered  into  on  the  16th  June, 
1840,  between  the  immigrant  colonists,  under  Mr. 
Oberholster,  and  the  Griquas  of  Philippolis!  More- 
over, its  genuineness  is  attested  by  the  Government 
of  the  Orange  Free  State,  and  by  "  Mr.  F.  Eex, 
sworn  translator,"  who  testifies  to  the  existence  uof  a 
copy  in  possession  of  the  Chief,  Adam  Kok." 

It  is  signed  by :  "  Cornelius  Kok,  Captain. 

Jan  Bloem,  Captain. 

And  by  :     (Council)         Gert  Bekus, 

Willem  Kok, 
Gert  Kok, 
Johannes  de  Wee." 

10.  Perhaps,  after  all,  the  most  conclusive  argument 
against  this  concocted  or  resuscitated  "  agreement"  is 
a  technical  objection — one  that  would  certainly  be 
deemed  sufficient  to  put  the  suitor  thereon  out  of  court  by 
any  civilized  tribunal.  President  Brand,  both  at  the 
meeting  at  Nooitgedacht,  and  subsequently  during  his 
correspondence  with  Waterboer's  British  supporters, 
very  justly  remarks,  "  that  the  best  of  all  documen- 
tary evidence  is  the  production  of  the  original."  This 
he  challenged  Waterboer  to  do,  and  the  Griqua  Chief, 
so  far  as  I  can  ascertain,  has  never  yet  complied ;  fail- 
ing which,  the  next  best  evidence  would  have  been  a 
sworn  deposition  as  to  the  existence  and  whereabouts 
of  the  original  document,  and  the  production  of  a 
properly-attested  copy,  which  has  not  been  done 
either,  the  copy  produced  purporting  to  be  signed  only 
by  "  A.  Waterboer  and  A.  Kok."  Will  it  be  believed 
that,  under  these  circumstances,  General  Hay,  acting 


GENERAL   HAY'S   PARTIALITY.  169 

Governor  of  the  Cape  Colony,  in  September,  1870,  at 
once  accepted  Waterboer's  view,  and  upon  the  un- 
supported ipse  dixit  of  this  claimant  to  the  diamond 
fields  actually  proceeded  to  enforce  the  terms  of  that 
at  least  dubious,  obscure,  and  ancient  document 
against  the  Orange  Free  State,  although  well  aware 
that  President  Brand  and  his  Government  utterly  deny 
and  repudiate  the  genuineness  and  very  existence  of 
any  such  original  treaty  ? 

In  concluding  this  review  of  "Annexure  No.  5," 
laid  over  in  support  of  "Waterboer's  case,  I  must  state 
that  the  Government  of  the  Free  State  possess  nu- 
merous original  documents  of  an  exactly  opposite 
nature,  many  of  which,  instead  of  quoting  now,  I 
shall  have  occasion  to  refer  to  when  rebutting  some 
of  the  Colonial  Goverment's  arguments  in  support  of 
Waterboer's  case  further  on. 


170  THE   MODERN   GRIQUA. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

Analysis  of  the  Documentary  Evidence  Produced 
by  waterboer,  at  the  meeting  at  nooitgedacht, 
in  support  of  his  claim  to  the  former  territory 
of  the  late  cornelius  kok,  continued  : — 

2.  One  of  the  late  A.  Waterboer's  Sanctimonious  Epistles 
Befuted. — 3.  A.  Waterboer's  Eeply  to  the  Colonial  Secre- 
tary's Queries  as  to  his  Boundaries,  &c,  1845 ;  which 
Document,  though  produced  by  N.  Waterboer,  Proves  the 
Tree  State  Case. — 4.  Adam  Kok's  Eeply,  which  is  of 
Exactly  the  same  nature  and  effect  as  the  former. — 5.  A 
False  Interpretation  Exposed. — 6,  7,  and  8.  Waterboer  and 
Co.'s  Dodge  to  Swell  their  Documentary  Evidence  by 
utterly  irrelevant  matter  Exposed. — 9.  Major  Warden's 
Eeport  Inimical  to  Waterboer's  Case  :  Irrelevant  and 
Inefficient  Nature  of  the  Documents,  Annexures  17  to  39. 
— 10.  Eefutation  of  the  alleged  Treaty  and  Supplement 
with  Mahura. — 11.  Annexures  41  to  S3  shown  to  have  no 
Bearing  on  the  Case. 

2.  "  Annexure  No.  6  "  purports  to  be  the  "  copy  "  of 
"  Extracts  of  a  letter  from  the  late  Chief,  Waterboer, 
dated  Griqua  Town,  11th  December,  1832,  addressed 
to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Wright." 

Anyone  acquainted  with  the  character  and  proclivi- 
ties of  the  modern  Griqua  would  certainly  deem  this 
curious  epistle  a  mere  tissue  of  pharisaical  humbug, 
hypocrisy  of  the  Stiggins'  school,  slightly  adulterated 
with   sundry  political  notions.     The   late   chief  was 


A  "  goody"  epistle.  171 

known  as  the  pet  production  of  the  missionaries,  and 
no  doubt  gladdened  the  hearts  of  the  elect  in  those 
days,  by  writing  that  he  — 

"  Considered  the  whole  power  of  the  Griqua's  Captain  as  a  dele- 
gated power,  to  be  assumed  for  the  benefit  of  the  people,  and  the 
spread  of  the  G-ospel  in  the  country,  and  among  the  heathens 
beyond  the  Griqua  country." 

Tell  it  not  in  Gath !  But,  alas,  that  I  should  have  to 
so  supplement  this  excellent  sentiment !  The  Griquas 
of  these  degenerate  days  think  more  of  "  Cape  smoke  J> 
than  converting  the  heathen  or  anything  else. 

Although  a  private  letter  written  forty  years  ago  can 
hardly  be  worth  a  moment's  consideration,  still,  as  the 
Cape  Town  luminaries,  in  order  to  suit  their  own 
occult  purposes,  have  chosen  to  countenance,  and  now, 
for  the  very  first  time,  enforce  (by  the  power  of  British 
bayonets)  the  false,  exaggerated,  and  hitherto  unknown 
terms,  and  equally  obscure  little  individual  arrange- 
ments propounded  in  these  ancient,  obsolete,  and 
extremely  dubious  documents,  it  has  become  necessary, 
in  the  interests  of  truth  and  justice,  to  deal  with  and 
refute  every  point  advanced. 

I  need  hardly  observe  that  even  a  private  letter, 
written  by  an  interested  individual  to-day,  unattested, 
unsworn,  and  depending  entirely  upon  the  writer's 
will  and  moral  character  for  its  truthfulness  or  false- 
hood,— especially  when  his  statements,  if  believed, 
would  make  him  a  much  more  important  personage 
than  he  ever  was,  and  give  to  him  an  extensive  tract 
of  country  hitherto  the  property  of  another, — would 
scarcely  be  received  in  any  civilized  law  court  as 
evidence. 


172 


THE    EPISTLE   ANALYZED. 


Old  Andries  Waterboer  wrote  (and  the  letter  seems 
genuine) — 


Extracts  from  the  letter. 
"  In  the  year  1816,  Cornelius 
Kok,  the  present  Chief  of  Camp- 
bell, came  to  the  Griqua  country 
.  .  .  On  his  arrival  he  was 
not  in  possession  of  any  foun- 
tains or  lands  of  his  own,  but 
was  granted  (a)  some  agricul- 
tural privileges  or  sufferances, 
owing  to  the  Chief,  Adam  Kok, 
abandoning  Griqua  Town  and 
going  to  reside  at  Black  "  (the 
Orange)  "  Biver." 


Remarks  thereon, 
{a)  The  question  is,  By  whom 
were  those  "  privileges  granted?" 
We  have  seen  that  at  that  time 
Adam  or  Dam  Kok  was  the  head 
Griqua  Chief,  but  that  in  1816, 
when  he  appointed  "  ITort" 
Adam  Kok  to  Griqua  Town,  he 
also  left  Cornelius  Kok  (who 
had  been  previously  appointed) 
as  Chief  of  Campbell.  Waterboer 
was  then  merely  a  messenger,  so 
that  Cornelius  Kok' 8  grants  or 
appointments  could  not  have 
come  from  him. 


"  I  was  chosen  Chief  in  1820, 
by  the  people,  in  Adam  Kok's 
stead;  this  choice  was  recom- 
mended by  the  missionaries  and 
approved  by  the  directors  of  the 
London  Missionary  Society,  and 
received  the  sanction  of  the 
Colonial  Government  in  1822." 


"  In  1824,  I  thought  (a)  it  a 
desirable  thing  to  have  a  Chief 
at  Campbell,  to  preserve  order 
in  the  country,  and  to  promote 
the  interest  of  the  missionary 
labours  in  that  district.  I 
thought  it  advisable,  with  the 
concurrence  of  the  missionaries 
and  the   people,   to  recommend 


Dam  Kok,  having  disagreed 
with  the  Missionaries,  appointed 
A.  Waterboer  as  successor  to 
"Kort"  Adam  Kok,  whom,  we 
have  previously  seen,  he  first  esta- 
blished as  his  successor,  when  he 
left  Griqua  Town.  As  A.  Water- 
boer became  Chief  only  in  1820, 
he  could  not  have  granted  any- 
thing to,  or  appointed  Cornelius 
Kok  in  1816! 

(a)  No  matter  what  A.  Water- 
boer "thought,"  all  the  evidence 
we  have  adduced  proves  that 
Cornelius  Kok  was,  in  tact, 
appointed  by  his  father,  old 
Cornelius  Kok,  and  his  brother, 
Dam  Kok,  and  that  the  iormer 
never  had  anything  to  do  with, 
him.      (b)    Moreover,    it    is  not 


POOR   PROOF.  173 

(b)  Cornelius  Kok,  as  Chief  of  even  asserted  by  A.  Waterboer 
Campbell,  and  an  application  that  he  appointed  C.  Kok,  only 
being  made  by  me  to  the  Colo-  that  he  "  recommended"  him; 
nial  Government  to  sanction  the  whilst  the  inference  to  be  derived 
appointment,  the  Government  is,  that  the  Colonial  Government 
was  induced  to  accede  to  the  made  the  appointment.  Besides 
proposal,  and  since  that  period  which,  not  a  word  is  said  to  the 
he  has  continued  to  sustain  the  effect  that  Cornelius  Kok  was 
designation  of  Captain  of  Camp-  Waterboer's  subordinate,  or  un- 
bell.,,  der  chief,  or  in  any  way  depen- 

dent upon  or  inferior  to  him, 
though  it  is  very  clearly  stated 
that  he  became  and  remained 
the  Captain  of  Campbell ! 


3.  Annexure  No.  7  is  an  important  document ;  for 
that  it  is  genuine  there  seems  no  doubt.  It  is  a  letter 
from  old  Andries  Waterboer,  dated  Griqua  Town,  29th 
July,  1845,  in  reply  to  a  series  of  questions  which  had 
been  communicated  by  a  despatch,  dated  18th  April, 
1845,  from  the  Colonial  Secretary  (Mr.  Southey?)  at 
Cape  Town. 

Upon  perusing  this  document  I  was  not  a  little 
astonished  to  perceive  that  instead  of  being  of  any 
value  or  support  to  the  present  Nicholas  Water- 
boer's unjust  claim  to  the  diamond  fields,  &c,  a 
very  cursory  examination  proved  it  to  be  exactly 
the  reverse ;  so  much  so,  indeed,  as  to  make  me  be- 
lieve that  it  can  only  have  been  put  in  as  part  of 
the  case  either  by  mistake,  or  with  the  idea  that 
it  would  apparently  swell  the  evidence,  whilst  those 
(the  Cape  Government  in  particular)  to  whom  it 
was  to  be  produced  would  neither  be  too  critical, 
nor  personally  possess  much  knowledge  of  the 
subject. 


174        WATERBOER   PROVES   THE   FREE    STATE   CASE. 

Paragraph  1  gives  the  boundaries  of  Griqua  land,  or 
Waterboer' s  territory : — 

•*1.  The  boundaries  of  the  territory  over  which  I  preside  are  the 
following  :  On  the  east,  between  the  territories  of  the  Chief  of  Philip- 
polis  and  my  own,  is  Ramah,  distant  about  90  miles  from  Griqua 
Town ;  on  [the  north,  the  line  cuts  between  Daniel's  Kuil  and 
Koning,  about  70  miles  from  Griqua  Town ;  on  the  west  Kheis  is 
the  boundary,  about  100  miles  from  Griqua  Town,  and  on  the 
south  my  boundary  runs  as  the  northern  boundary  of  the  colony  u 
— i.e.,  along  the  north  bank  of  the  Orange  Eiver." 

By  referring  to  Diagram  A,  (and  D,  Chapter  XIV.),  it 
will  be  seen  at  a  glance  that  the  boundaries  defined  by 
old  Andries  Waterboer  are  precisely  the  same  as  those 
described  by  the  witnesses  for  the  Free  State  as  having 
bounded  the  late  Cornelius  Kok's  territory  on  the  west ; 
precisely  those  which  we  have  so  frequently  adduced 
as  the  distinguishing  lines  between  the  territory  of 
Griqua  Town  and  the  Campbell  lands  ;  and  precisely 
those  for  which  the  Orange  Free  State  contends ! 

Ramah  is  distinctly  given  as  the  eastern  boundary 
(though,  being  a  place,  it  would  more  correctly  have 
been  mentioned  as  the  eastern  or  south  eastern  point) 
between  Waterboer  and  "the  territories  of  the  Chief 
of  Philippolis."  There  can  be  no  escape  from  this 
conclusive  fact.  No  mention  whatsoever  is  made  of  David's 
Graf  ;  no  such  word  as  Platberg  appears  anywhere  either 
in  the  boundaries  defined,  or  elsewhere  in  the  document  ;  yet 
this  is  an  official  paper,  apparently  authentic,  and  of 
which  the  original  should  exist  among  the  Cape  Town 
archives  !  How,  then,  can  Waterboer  and  Co.  concoct 
the  false  lino  from  Ramah,  via  David's  Graf,  to  Platberg  ? 
Why,  astounding  as  the  assertion  must  seem,  solely 
upon  the  authority  and  foundation  of  the  one  sentence, 


CONSTITUTION   OF  WATERBOER's   CASE.  175 

"  and  northwards  to  Platberg,"  which  occurs  in  the 
alleged  "  Agreement "  (Amezure  No.  5)  we  reviewed  in 
the  last  chapter ! 

Instead  of  abiding  by  the  terms  of  a  seemingly  un- 
doubtedly genuine,  recognized,  and  executed  official 
document,  Waterboer  and  his  allies  fall  back  upon  the 
most  vague,  ambiguous,  and  incomprehensible  sentence 
in  a  most  dubious,  and  certainly  never  known  or  ful- 
filled treaty  !  And  from  which,  even  then,  they  have 
no  excuse  for  dragging  in  the  midway  point  of  David's 
Graf, — that  place  never  once  being  named  in  the 
document ! 

The  latter  portion  of  paragraph  1  (Annexure  No.  7) 
if  possible  still  more  plainly  settles  the  eastern  boundary 
of  Waterboer,  and  confirms,  beyond  a  doubt,  the  view 
or  theory  by  which  I  am  guided  just  here — viz.,  that 
Andries  Waterboer  in  this  document  considers  and 
refers  to  the  Griquas  under  Cornelius  Kok  also,  when 
he  mentions  the  Griquas  of  Philippolis,  or  those  under 
the  Chief  (Dam  Kok  in  those  days)  of  Philippolis.  The 
clause  I  especially  refer  to  is  this : — 

"The  nations  residing  against  my  boundaries  are,  on  the  east,  the 
Griquas  of  Philippolis  ;  on  the  north-east,  a  tribe  of  Koranas." 

The  remainder  of  the  paragraph  only  relates  to  the 
tribes  on  the  "  north,  south,  and  west,"  with  which  we 
are  not  concerned. 

Now,  we  have  already  seen  that  Ramah  is  given  as 
the  eastern  point  or  boundary  of  Waterboer' s  territory ; 
that  he  fully  recognized  and  admitted  the  old  line  of 
demarcation  between  Griqua  Town  and  Campbell  as 
the  continuation  of  that  eastern  boundary,  and  also  in- 
cluded the  Griquas  of  Campbell  with  those  "  of  Phi- 


176  waterboer's  case  destroyed. 

lippolis,"  is  fully  proved  by  the  statement  that  he  was 
bounded  "  on  the  north-east,"  by  "  a  tribe  of  Koranas  " 
— those  Koranas  being  the  people  under  the  Chief  Bar  end  B  a- 
rendse*  who  were  separated  from  Waterboer's  grounds 
by  a  boundary  line  running  on  in  continuation  of  the 
old  line  between  Grriqua  Town  and  Campbell,  but  who 
subsequently  went  under  the  sole  government  of  Cor- 
nelius Kok,  to  whom,  indeed,  their  chief  was  always 
subordinate,  their  territory  being  that  immediately 
adjoining  the  Campbell  lands  on  the  north. 

The  chiefs  of  Campbell  and  Philippolis  were  brothers; 
they  were  the  only  hereditary  chiefs  of  the  Griquas, 
from  whom  Waterboer's  subjects  had  seceded ;  both 
had  been  appointed  by  their  father,  the  last  supreme 
chief,  and  it  would  have  been  strange,  indeed,  if  at 
that  early  period,  before  any  divisions  or  separations 
could  have  occurred  between  them  (None  have  been 
asserted,  either,  by  documentary  or  sworn  evidence !) 
Waterboer  had  written  of  them  as  two  distinct  nations. 

Paragraph  2  clearly  disproves  the  most  important 
point,  the  entire  case,  in  fact,  as  put  forth  by  the 
present  Waterboer  and  his  abettors, — viz.,  the  assertion 
that  Cornelius  Kok  was  appointed  Chief  of  Campbell 
by  old  Andries  Waterboer,  and  only  ruled  as  his 
deputy  or  subordinate! 

"  2.  My  subjects  are  of  different  tribes  .  .  .  There  are  chiefs  over 
the  various  tribes  who  have  the  charge  of  surveillance  over  them  from  me ; 
their  names  aret  of  the  Koranas,  Witboy  and  Klaas ;  of  the  Bushmen, 
Tebe;  of  the  Batlaroos,    Samechoe;  andoftheBasutos,  Kailane" 

How  is  it  that  no  mention  is  made  either  of  Corne- 
lius Kok,  or   the   people   of  Campbell  ?     Simply,  of 

*  See  diagrams  A  and  D  for  the  territory  of  the  Korana  Chief,  Ba- 
rend  Barendse. 


FAILURE   OF   WATERBOER'S   EVIDENCE.  171 

course,  because  Waterboer  had  nothing  at  all  to  do 
with  them  ! 

Three  clauses  of  paragraph  3,  and  last,  just  as  effec- 
tually prove  that  Waterboer' s  territory  never  extended 
beyond  the  lines  defined  by  this  authentic  document, 
viz.,  those  marked  in  Diagrams  A  and  D,  as  the  ori- 
ginal Griqua  boundary  in  1811,  and  the  line  between 
Campbell  and  Griqua  Town  of  1820,  and  which  are 
also  those  maintained  by  the  Orange  Free  State. 

The  first  clause  states : 

"  The  lands  which  are  built  upon  are  by  our  laws  acknowledged 
as  the  property  of  the  occupiers,  still  they  cannot  sell  to  strange 
persons  without  consent  from  myself  and  raad,  neither  can  I,  as 
chief,  alienate  any  land  to  other  persons  without  consent  of  my 
people,  made  known  through  a  general  meeting." 

Now,  as  Cornelius  Kok  and  his  people  always  did  sell 
their  land  to  "  strange  persons,"  whilst  it  is  an  equally 
well-known  historical  fact  that  neither  Waterboer  nor 
his  subjects  ever  did,  the  complete  independence  of 
the  two  chiefs  and  tribes  could  not  be  better  illustrated. 

The  second  clause  gives  a  list  of  Waterboer' s  "  prin- 
cipal "  kraals  or  villages,  nine  in  number ;  but  Campbell 
is  not  amongst  them,  although  it  was  the  second,  if  not 
indeed,  the  first  of  the  Griqua  villages,  and  was  cer- 
tainly quite  as  populous  and  important  a  place  as 
Griqua  Town  itself ! 

The  third  clause  contains  the  statement : — 

"I  have  to  say  that  there  are  no  emigrant  farmers  in  my  terri- 
tory, that  I  have  made  no  agreement  with  them,  and  no  intercourse 
has  taken  place  between  them  and  my  subjects." 

From  this  very  positive  and  distinct  statement  it  is 
placed  beyond  question  that  Waterboer  had  nothing 

N 


178         OFFICIAL    REPORTS    V.    WATERBOER's    CLAIMS. 

whatever  to  do  with  that  large  portion  of  South  Ada- 
mantia — formerly  under  the  nominal  ownership  of 
Bushmen,  of  Captain  Adam  Kok,  and  Captain  Cornelius 
Kok — now  so  audaciously  claimed  by  his  son  Nicholas 
Waterboer;  because,  at  that  time,  1845,  these  lands 
were  (and  had  been  for  many  years)  occupied  by  boers 
or  emigrant  farmers.  A  reference  to  pp.  30  and  31, 
Chapter  II.,  will  effectually  prove  the  fact  by  the 
official  reports  of  the  British  Residents,  Major  Warden 
and  Assistant-Commissary-General  Green ;  the  former 
of  whom  states  that — 

11  The  Van  Wijk's  country  ( between  the  Vaaland  Modeler  rivers)  was 
purchased  by  boers  many  years  ago  from  the  Bushman  Chief  Dantzer;" 

Whilst    the    latter    also    asserts    that   the   emigrant 

farmers, 

"  Under  Fourie,  obtained  in  the  same  manner  .  .  .  an  extensive  tract  of 
country  to  the  westward  of  Bloemfontein,  between  the  Modder  and  Vaal" 

Moreover,  the  following  extract  from  a  "  Govern- 
ment Notice,"  dated  "  Government  House,  Cape  Town, 
January  29th,  1850,"  still  further  proves  that  the 
country  within  the  boundaries  claimed  by  the  Orange 
Free  State,  and  up  to  those  marked  in  Diagrams  A 
and  D,  as  claimed  by  Andries  Waterboer,  was  actually 
in  the  possession  and  occupation  of  emigrant  farmers : — 

*  "Some  persons  .  .  .  have  lately  striven  to  spread  a  report  that 
in  three  years,  or  some  other]  term,  the  farms  occupied  by  emigrants 
beyond  the  Riet  river  and  Kromelboog  Spruit  (that  is  to  say,  in  the 
alienable,  as  contradistinguished  from  the  inalienable  territory  .  .  .) 
are  to  revert  to  the  Griqua  government  or  people.  There  is  no 
sort  or  shadow  of  ground  for  any  such  report.  .  .  .  The  lands  in 
question  are  vested  for  ever  in  Her  Majesty  the  Queen  of  England,  and 
no  idea  of  their  reverting  to  Captain  Adam  Kok  has  ever  been 
entertained."  .  .  . 

*  Vide -p.  82,  Blue  Book,  "Correspondence  respecting  the  affairs  of 
he  Cape  of  Good  Hope." — London,  1871. 


THE    "  ENGINEER   HOIST   BY   HIS   OWN   PETARD."      179 

Those  lands — up  to  the  Vaal  River,  indeed, — were 
subsequently  made  over  in  their  entirety,  by  the 
convention  of  1854  (quoted  verbatim  at  the  end  of 
Chapter  III.)  to  the  government  of  the  Orange  Free 

State. 

In  concluding  this  review  of  Annexure  No.  7,  in 
support  of  Waterboer  and  Co.'s  case,  I  cannot  but 
express  unbounded  surprise  at  its  production.  As  I 
have  accepted  all  and  every  of  the  statements  made 
therein,  no  one  can  possibly  imagine  that  I  have  been 
hypercritical,  or  even  in  the  faintest  degree  captious ; 
yet  every  clause  of  that  document  absolutely  corro- 
borates the  case  I  advocate  !  It  seems  extraordinary. 
And  although,  so  far  as  the  British  authorities  are  con- 
cerned, neither  proof  nor  document,  of  whatsoever 
character,  need  excite  surprise,  since  they  have  adopted 
the  simple  old  maxim  that  "  might  makes  right ;"  still 
it  is  difficult  to  understand  how  Waterboer  and  his 
" fidus  Achates"  David,  can  have  put  forward  such  a 
paper  as  evidence  in  their  favour. 

Altogether  Annexure  No.  7  is  very  important,  for,  to 
the  best  of  my  judgment,  it  actually  constitutes  the 
only  relevant  and  undoubtedly  genuine  and  authentic 
document  produced  on  Waterboer' s  side. 

4.  Annexure  No.  8  is  a  copy  of  Captain  Adam  Kok's 
reply  to  a  set  of  questions  similar  to  those  put  to  Water- 
boer by  the  Colonial  Secretary,  and  answered  in  the 
document,  Annexure  No.  7.  Beyond  the  first  short 
paragraph  it  does  not  contain  anything  either  im- 
portant or  relevant  to  the  disputed  ownership  of  Ada- 
mantia.  But  that  paragraph  fully  confirms  not  only 
the  definition  of  boundaries  in  Annexure  7,  but  also  the 

n  2 


180  waterboer's  claim  refuted. 

criticisms   passed  thereon  by  the  writer.      It    is    as 
follows:  — 

"  1st.  The  territory  claimed  by  my  people  is  bounded  on  the  south 
and  south-west  by  the  Orange  River ;  on  the  north  and  north-east  by 
the  Modder  Hirer  ;  on  the  east  by  the  country  of  Lepui ;  and  on  the 
w&st  by  that  of  Waterboer.'" 

A  reference  to  Diagrams  A  and  D  will  at  once  show 
the  coincidence  between  the  definition  of  boundaries 
by  Adam  Kok  and  Waterboer.  The  latter  says,  "  On 
the  east,  between  the  territories  of  the  chief  of  Philip- 
polis,  and  my  own,  is  Hainan." 

"  On  the  west,"  that  is  to  say,  on  the  other  side  of 
Ramah,  Adam  Kok  places  Waterboer's  Griquas ;  and 
he  further  gives  a  separate  and  distinct  boundary 
— "  on  the  north  and  north-east  by  the  Modder  River  " 
— on  the  frontier  of  the  ground  now  claimed  by  Water- 
boer's son !  Who  was  at  the  other  side  of  the  Modder 
River  ?  Certainly  not  Waterboer,  for  he  was  "  on  the 
west."  But  have  we  not  seen  that  the  line  from  Ramah 
to  David's  Graf  was  drawn,  about  the  year  1840,  by 
Adam  Kok,  between  himself  and  Cornelius  Kok  ?  Have 
we  not  also  seen  that  this  line  was  subsequently  en- 
dorsed and  inserted  in  Sir  Peregrine  Maitland's  treaty, 
in  1846,  and  was  further  accepted  by  Sir  Harry  Smith 
and  successive  governors  of  the  Cape  Colony  ?  And 
have  we  not  seen  that  in  1855  the  famous  Vetberg  line 
was  made  from  the  Modder  River  to  the  former  line,  by 
Captain  Adam  Kok,  between  Waterboer  and  Cornelius 
Kok — the  latter  being  left  as  sole  and  independent 
chief  over  the  territory  north  of  the  line  from  Ramah 
to  David's  Graf,  east  of  the  Vetberg  line,  and  north  of 
the  Modder  River,  from  its  junction  with  the  Vaal,  to 
David's  Graf,  at  its  confluence  with  the  Riet  River  ? 


TESTIMONY   OF   TIIE   EEV.    C.    F.    WURAS.  181 

How  far  easterly  Cornelius  Kok's  territory  ever  ex- 
tended, north  of  the  Modder,  it  is  impossible  now  to 
ascertain,  although  he  formerly  claimed  a  line  from 
Ramah,  on  the  Orange  River,  to  Platberg,  on  the  Vaal. 
Moreover,  it  is  well  known  that  the  northern  part  of 
this  territory — South  Adamantia — was  in  the  posses- 
sion of  Bushmen,  certainly  from  Pniel  to  Platberg,  so 
late  as  the  year  1852.  But  it  is  equally  clear  that 
Pniel  itself,  or  rather  the  ground  which  subsequently 
became  known  as  the  Pniel  Mission  grounds,  did  in 
1857  belong  to  Cornelius  Kok ;  and  that  he  sold  the 
same,  in  that  year,  to  the  representative  of  the  Berlin 
Missionary  Society.  Here  follows  an  extract,  extremely 
apropos  to  the  matter,  from  a  letter  written  by  that 
gentleman,  the  Rev.  C.  F.  Wuras,  to  the  Free  State 
Government,  bearing  date  "  Bethany,  10th  January, 
1871  " :— 

"2nd. — Before  I  bought  the  Pniel  ground,  I  thoroughly  inves- 
tigated to  whom  the  land  belonged.  By  general  consent  of  Korana 
Chief,  Jan  Bloem,  and  all  the  Korana  tribes  who  lived  there,  the 
owner  was  the  Chief,  Cornelius  Kok.  Whaterloer'*  s  name  was  not  even 
mentioned  at  that  time.  And  also  the  farmers,  who  had  bought  places 
in  the  above-named  territory  from  Cornelius  Kok,  acknowledged 
him  as  the  rightful  owner. 

"  3rd. — Since  the  establishment  of  the  Berlin  Mission  Station, 
Pniel,  25  years  ago,  the  Chiefs,  Waterboer,  neither  father  nor  son, 
have  laid  any  claim  whatever  to  the  Pniel  grounds. " 

The  above  extract  is  sufficiently  plain  and  positive — 
it  requires  no  comment ;  yet  the  Pniel  grounds,  with 
the  lands  purchased  since  1837,  from  Bushman  chiefs ; 
the  greater  part  of  the  alienable  territory  bought  from 
Adam  Kok,  of  which  transfer  was  confirmed  by  the 
then  British  authorities;  as  well  as  the  principal 
portion  of  the  lands  sold  by  Adam  and  Cornelius  Kok  : 


182  IRRELEVANT   DOCUMENTARY   EVIDENCE. 

all  east  of  the  Vetberg  line,  and  north  of  the  Modder 
River ;  are  claimed  by  Nicholas  Waterboer,  and  have 
been  seized  for  him,  vi  et  armis,  by  the  Cape  Govern- 
ment, who  arranged  matters  so  that  they  retain  the 
land,  not  Waterboer,  since  diamonds  were  discovered! 
Annexures  9  and  10  have  absolutely  nothing  at  all  to 
do  with  Waterboer's  case,  being  the  treaty  made  in 
1843  between  Adam  Kok  and  Sir  George  Napier,  and 
the  Maitland  treaty  of  1846,  also  made  with  Adam 
Kok. 

Annexures  11  and  12  are  equally  irrelevant,  and  as 
they  never  have  been  quoted  by  Waterboer's  advocates, 
and  certainly  never  will  be,  we  need  not  trouble  about 
them,  the  1st  being  page  211  of  the  Blue  Book, 
"  Kaffir  Tribes,"  1851,  which  does  not  concern  Water- 
boer ;  and  the  2nd  being  an  alleged  supplement  to  the 
alleged  and  spurious  "  Agreement,"    Annexure  No.  5. 

Annexure  No.  13,  however,  having  been  referred  to 
in  the  correspondence  between  the  Free  State  and 
Colonial  Governments,  though  really  unimportant  and 
not  relevant  to  Waterboer's  preposterous  claims,  must 
be  noticed. 

5.  Annexure  No.  13  is  the  copy  of  a  proclamation 
issued  by  Captain  Adam  Kok,  dated  "  Ramah,  the 
26th  November,  1848"  :— 

"  Whereas  several  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  district  of  Philippolis 
have  .  .  .  established  themselves  in  different  portions  of  the  dis- 
trict of  Campbell  and  Griqua  Town,  consequently  beyond  the  juris- 
diction of  the  Courts  of  Philippolis,  so  full  right  and  authority  is 
hereby  given  to  Captain  Andries  Waterboer,  in  case  any  Griqua 
subject  of  Philippolis  should  make  himself  guilty  of  any  crime 
whatever  within  the  jurisdiction  of  Griqua  Town,  to  prosecute  and 
punish  such  persons  according  to  the  existing  law." 


"  PADDING  n    OF   WATERBOER's   CASE.  183 

The  above  document  is  given  and  cited  as  proof 
that  Captain  Adam  Kok  gave  and  acknowledged  right 
over  Campbell  and  its  Chief,  Cornelius  Kok,  to  Water- 
boer  !  But  any  ordinary  being,  compos  mentis,  can 
see  that,  whereas  two  distinct  "districts"  viz.,  u  Camp- 
bell and  Griqua  Town"  are  mentioned  in  the  preamble, 
yet  Waterboer  is  just  as  clearly  and  succinctly  given 
power  over  Adam  Kok's  subjects,  only  in  one  of  those 
districts,  viz.,  his  own  "  within  the  jurisdiction  of 
Griqua  Town."  Where,  by  what  words,  is  he  given 
power  over  those  in  the  Campbell  lands  under 
Cornelius  Kok's  jurisdiction  ? 

6.  Annexure  No.  14  is  simply  a  copy  of  the  D'Urban 
treaty  of  1834,  which  we  have  frequently  referred 
to,  which  we  have  proved  terminated  by  the  death  of 
Andries  Waterboer,  when  by  official  papers  we  have 
previously  quoted,  the  Colonial  Government  dis- 
tinctly refused  to  renew  it  with  the  present  Water- 
boer, and  which,  moreover,  contained  nothing 
whatever  bearing  upon  the  present  case,  except  the 
mention  of  "  Ramah,"  as  Waterboer' s  "  eastern 
boundary;''  and  that,  of  course,  is  directly  adverse 
to  the  present  claims  put  forward  in  his  name  to 
grounds  far  to  the  east  of  Ramah  ! 

7.  Annexure  No.  15  is  also  evidently  produced  by 
Waterboer  and  Co.  to  swell  the  quantity  of  documentary 
evidence  they  produce,  but  certainly  not  the  quality. 
It  is  actually  neither  more  nor  less  than  Sir  Harry 
Smith's  obsolete  and  superseded  proclamation  of  the 
Orange  River  Sovereignty  on  the  3rd  February, 
1848! 

It  was  partly  revoked  by  that  Governor's  subsequent 


184    CONTINUED    IRRELEVANCE   OF   WATERBOER's   CASE. 

proclamation*  bearing  date  "  14th  March,  1849," 
declaring  that  it  and  "  any  other  former  proclamation 
shall  he,  and  the  same  is  hereby  revoked  accordingly." 
Neither  in  the  old  nor  the  new  proclamation  can  any 
such  word  as  Waterboer  be  found.  So  why  that 
individual  produced  the  former  as  evidence  in  favour 
of  his  fraudulent  claim  to  the  diamond  fields  deponent 
knoweth  not,  neither  can  he  imagine,  except  for  the 
motive  as  hereinbefore  stated. 

8.  Annexure  No.  16  must  be  treated  exactly  as  its 
predecessor.  It  consists  of  several  references  to  Blue 
Book,  "  Orange  River  Correspondence,  1851-4,"  the 
first  being  the  regulations  of  Sir  Harry  Smith's  pro- 
clamation of  14th  March,  1849,  above  referred  to ;  a 
memorandum  by  native  chiefs,  and  a  despatch  from 
Earl  Grey,  in  all  of  which,  literally  and  absolutely,  not 
one  word  occurs  concerning  Waterboer,  or  his  claims, 
either  directly  or  indirectly  ! 

9.  Annexures  17,  18,  and  19  are  not  relevant  to  the 
case.  No.  17  is  a  letter  from  Adam  Kok  to  Major 
Warden,  21st  November,  1850.  Contents  stating  that 
the  beacons  as  erected  along  the  line  between  Ramah 
and  David's  Graf  were  not  in  a  straight  line.  But 
what  has  this  to  do  with  Waterboer's  case — he  never 
having  had  any  concern  in  or  connection  with  that 
line? 

No.  18  is  a  "  letter  from  J.  Allison,  Clerk  to  the 
British  Residency,  to  Captain  Waterboer,  dated  17th 
July,  1850."  Contents  requesting  a  meeting  on  the 
24th  July,  at  Kameelfontein,  with  the  object  of  con- 

*  Vide  p.  3,  Blue  Book,  "  Orange  River  Correspondence,  1851—4." 


ANNEXURE  NO.  20  CONFOUNDS  ITS  PRODUCER.   185 

suiting  about  grounds  which  require  an  immediate 
settlement. 

No.  19  is  a  "  letter  from  A.  "Waterboer  to  Major 
Warden,  6th  August,  1850."  Contents  notifying 
his  regret  at  not  having  met  Major  Warden  on  the 
24th. 

As  these  letters  are  only  about  a  proposed  meeting 
which  never  occurred,  they,  of  course,  are  nugatory. 
Moreover,  from  other  evidence,  especially  the  next 
Annexure,  No.  20,  we  find  that  the  grounds  or  boundaries 
therein  referred  to  were  within  Albania — within  the 
limits  afterwards  defined  by  the  Vetberg  line,  which 
the  Free  State  does  not  dispute,  but  wishes  to  main- 
tain. 

Annexure  No.  20  is  the  report  from  the  British 
Eesident,  Major  Warden,  dated  "  Bloemfontein, 
August  3rd,  1850,"  to  the  Governor  of  the  Cape 
Colony,  to  which  we  have  already  several  times 
referred,  and  had  occasion  to  quote,  in  previous 
chapters.  How  Waterboer  and  Co.  can  adduce  it  as 
evidence  in  their  favour  is  simply  incomprehensible, 
for  it  really  contains  invaluable  corroborations  to  the 
entire  claims  of  the  Free  State!  From  it  we  have 
quoted  passages  (1)  proving  the  purchase  of  the  "  Van 
Wijks  country" — lying  between  the  Vaal  and  Modder 
rivers — from  David  Dantzer,  by  the  boers — ground 
now  claimed  by  Waterboer  and  Co. ;  (2)  disallowing 
Waterboer' s  claim,  even  to  Albania,  in  which  he  states 
that  neither  Waterboer  nor  Cornelius  Kok  "can 
establish  much  claim  by  right  of  occupation,"  and  that 
"that  part  of  the  country  may  be  viewed  as  waste- 
lands ;  "  and  (3)  declaring  that  "  both  Waterboer  and 
Kok  are  chiefs  residing  with  their  people  beyond  the 


18G  EFFECT   OF   THE   DIAMOND   DISCOVERY. 

Vaal  River  ;"  (4)  the  fact  that  Cornelius  Kok  was  an 
independent  chief,  and  that  Major  AVarden  met  him, 
and  always  recognized  him  as  such,  is  most  fully 
illustrated  throughout  this  official  document,  which 
Messrs.  Waterboer  and  Co.  have  so  foolishly  included 
amongst  evidence  produced  to  prove  exactly  the 
reverse ! 

As  we  have  previously  explained,  the  claims  of  both 
Waterboer  and  Cornelius  Kok  were  first  admitted  and 
made  legal,  so  far  as  any  land  south  of  the  Vaal  was 
concerned,  by  the  Government  of  the  Orange 
Free  State,  Waterboer  being  recognized  as  Chief  of 
Albania,  and  Cornelius  Kok  as  Chief  of  the  land  east 
of  that  territory  (as  defined  by  the  Vetberg  line),  and 
north  of  the  Modder  River. 

Annexure  No.  21  purports  to  be  a  copy  of  a  letter 
addressed  by  the  late  Andries  Waterboer  to  Governor 
Sir  Harry  Smith,  dated  "  Philippolis,  24th  May, 
1851."  This  document  we  have  already  fully  reviewed, 
pp.  74-80,  Chapter  IV.  It  contains  the  first  apparently 
authentic  claim  ever  put  forward  by  A.  Waterboer  to 
land  south  of  the  Vaal,  to  Albania  ;  and  we  have  seen 
that  Sir  Harry  Smith,  and  all  successive  Governors, 
disallowed  it  in  those  days.  It  is  only  since  the  discovery 
of  diamonds  on  this  ground  that,  in  1870-1-2,  those 
two  enlightened  gubernatorial  luminaries,  General  Hay 
and  Sir  Henry  Barkly,  have  suddenly  discovered,  after 
the  lapse  of  20  years,  that  this  unproved  assertion  really 
constituted  a  valid  claim  to  what  has  been  for  even  a 
longer  period,  de  facto  and  dejure,  part  and  parcel  of 
the  territory  which,  since  1854,  became  known  as  the 
Orange  Free  State  ! 

Annexure  No.  22  is  a  copy  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Solomon's 


AN   UNWISE   SOLOMON.  187 

deposition  in  favour  of  Waterboer;  but  it  is  not  a  very 
wise  production ;  for,  instead  of  applying  to  any  part 
of  the  ground  claimed  by  his  protege ,  it  only  concerns 
Albania  !     Here  is  his  own  definition : — 

"  During  the  whole  of  the  time  that  I  was  at  Griqua 
Town,  Waterboer' s  right  to  the  ground  now  in  question, 
that  enclosed  between  the  Vaal  River  on  the  west, 
Modder  River  on  the  north,  the  Orange  Eiver  on  the 
south,  and  a  line  drawn  from  Eamah  to  David's  Graf 
on  the  east,  was  never  to  my  knowledge  disputed 
more  than  once  !  " 

A  reference  to  any  of  our  diagrams  will  show  that 
the  land  thus  described  constitutes  Albania — not  that 
which  is  in  dispute — except,  indeed,  a  small  strip  of 
ground  between  the  Vetberg  line  and  the  Modder 
River,  containing  a  portion  of  three  farms  only,  whereas 
the  line  from  Ramah  to  David's  Graf  and  Platberg 
claimed  by  Waterboer  and  Co.,  and  seized  by  the 
Colonial  Government,  cuts  off  143  Free  State  farms ! 

As  Mr.  Solomon's  deposition  has  been  already  fully 
discussed  in  Chapter  IV.,  we  have  not  any  further 
remarks  to  make  thereon. 

Annexure  No.  23  consists  of  a  chart  of  the  "line 
from  Ramah  to  David's  Graf;"  and  we  have  seen  that, 
until  by  the  making  of  the  Vetberg  line,  which  gave 
him  ground  from  it  to  Ramah,  Waterboer  never  had 
any  interest  therein. 

Annexure  No.  24  is  given  as  copy  of  a  letter  from 
"J.W.  Spruit  Esq.,  Free  State  Government  Secretary," 
dated  "  Bloemfontein,  14th  June,  1856,  to  the  Griqua 
Captains,  Adam  Kok  and  Andries  Waterboer"  (who, 
however,  had  then  been  dead  for  four  years  ! )  ;  but,  as 
this  letter  simply  points  out  that  two  and.  a  half  Free 


188  MORE   REVERSIBLE    EVIDENCE. 

State  farms  are  cut  off  from  that  State  by  the  newly- 
made  Vetberg  line,  viz.,  the  farms  Driekops  Pan,  Water- 
bank,  and  Scholtzfontein,  instead  of  supporting  Water- 
boer's  case,  this  document,  by  mentioning,  recognizing, 
and  maintaining  the  Vetberg  line,  is  again  entirely 
favourable  to  the  Free  State  claims,  which  are  founded 
partly  upon  the  existence  of  that  line  (which  Water- 
boer  and  Co.  deny! ),  and  which  assert,  moreover,  that 
that  line  bounds  the  State  on  the  west,  whilst  Water- 
boer  and  Co.,  swearing  that  such  a  line  never  existed, 
have,  by  force,  substituted  that  from  Eamah  via 
David's  Graf  to  Platberg. 

Annexure  No.  26  is  a  letter  from  the  President  of  the 
Free  State  to  Governor,  Sir  George  Grey,  upon  ex- 
actly the  same  subject,  asking  for  his  opinion.  This 
letter  we  have  fully  noticed  in  Chapter  IV.  The  above 
remarks  on  No.  24  equally  apply  to  it,  and  to — 

Annexure  No.  27,  the  Governor's  reply,  referring  to 
the  question  as  "  the  satisfactory  settlement  of  the 
boundary  lines  in  the  Griqua  territory/'  and  which  is 
also  fully  discussed  in  Chapter  IV. 

Annexure  No.  25  purports  to  be  a  copy  of  a  letter 
from  Captain  Adam  Kok  to  Waterboer,  dated  8th  July, 
1856,  it  is  certainly  not  relevant  or  favourable  to  the 
latter's  trumped-up  case.  The  only  part  which  has  any 
bearing  whatever  upon  either  side  is  the  preamble : — 

"With  these  few  lines  I  send  you  .  .  .  a  letter  coming  from  the 
President"  (of  the  Orange  Free  State).  "I  have  also  got  one  of  the 
same  contents,  upon  which  I  will  not  send  a  reply  until  I  have  seen 
your  answer.  He  writes  about  the  line  fixed  between  Campbell  and 
Griqua  Town.''1 

Why,  here  again,  Messrs.  Waterboer  and  Co.  are 
benighted  enough  to  put  in  evidence  a  document  which 


QUALITY  OF  WATERBOER  AND  CO.'s  DOCUMENTS.       189 

states  and  admits  another  line  which  they  have  the 
hardihood  to  deny  as  haying  ever  existed  ! 

Anncxure  No.  28,  like  nearly  the  whole  of  Messrs. 
Waterboer  and  Co.'s  documentary  evidence,  has  abso- 
lutely nothing  whatsoever,  nothing  directly  or  indi- 
rectly, to  do  with  that  chief  and  his  case  !  It  is  merely 
put  in  to  swell  the  evidence.  It  is  a  despatch  *  from  the 
"  Duke  of  Newcastle,  to  Sir  George  Clerk,  dated  14th 
November,  1853,"  instructing  the  latter  as  to  the 
abandonment  of  the  Orange  River  Sovereignty.  Water- 
boer's  name  is  never  mentioned,  and  not  one  word 
therein  concerns  him,  nor  did  he  ever  have  anything 
to  do  with  the  former  Orange  River  Sovereignty. 

Annexure  No.  29,  given  as  a  copy  of  a  letter  from 
Captain  Adam  Kok  to  Captain  N.  Waterboer,  dated 
Philippolis,  30th  August,  1858,  simply  contains  the 
former's  advice  to  the  latter  to  pay  Sir  George  Grey  a 
visit : — 

"  Now  it  is  my  wish  that  you  also  personally  could  speak  to  the 
Governor  respecting  that  portion  of  your  country  what  the  Free 
State  claims.' ' 

This,  like  most  of  Waterboer  and  Co's.  documentary 
evidence,  is  an  unknown,  unattested,  and  non-verified 
paper.  If,  however,  genuine,  it  only  contains  an 
individual  assertion  that  some  land  dispute  then 
existed  between  Waterboer  and  the  Free  State ;  and 
we  have  previously  shown  that  about  that  time  the 
only  land  disputes  were  caused  by  the  gradually  in- 
creasing and  unfounded  claims  put  forth  by  Waterboer 
to  ground  beyond  his  well-known  boundaries,  beyond 
Albania,  and  even  north  of  the  Modder  River. 

*  Vide  p.  87,  Blue  Book  (No.  3),  "  Orange  River  Correspondence, 
1851—4." 


190        DUPLICITY  OF  WATERBOER  AND  HIS  BACKERS. 

Annexure  No.  30,  "  letter  from  President  Pretorius 
to  Captain  N.  Waterboer,  28th  April,  1862."— Con- 
tents— 

11  Informing  him  that  the  Landdrost  of  Fauresmith  had  issued 
warrants  for  the  apprehension  of  some  thieves,  and  requesting  their 
extradition,  and  informing  him  that  he  saw  clearly  that  it  was  most 
difficult  for  him  to  exercise  his  authority  on  the  south  side  of  the 
Vaal  River ,  and  suggesting  a  conference  on  the  subject." 

This  paper  would  have  been  too  unimportant  to 
notice  had  it  not  been  quoted  by  the  British  backers 
of  Waterboer — General  Hay  and  Governor  Sir  H. 
Barkly — as  evidence  that  the  Free  State  had  formerly 
admitted  Waterboer' s  rights  to  what  he  now  claims 
south  of  the  Vaal !  "  South  of  the  Vaal "  is  an  indefinite 
expression,  and  has  been  wilfully  perverted  to  suit 
sinister  purposes  in  this  case.  What  that  letter  really 
applied  to,  as  I  am  instructed  by  the  Free  State 
Government,  and  as  the  then  notorious  existing  facts 
historically  prove,  was  to  Albania.  We  suppose  that 
Waterboer  assumed  "  authority"  over  that  ground 
which  lies  "  south  of  the  Vaal,"  although  at  the  same 
time,  be  it  remarked,  we  are  quite  aware  that  his 
authority  was  merely  an  abstract  theory,  until  British 
bayonets,  in  1871,  came  ostensibly  to  support  him,  but, 
in  reality  to  effect  the  robbery  of  the  diamond  fields 
for  the  Cape  Government ! 

Annexure  No.  31. — Copy  of  a  letter  from  the  Govern- 
ment Secretary  of  the  Free  State  to  Waterboer,  dated 
25th  November,  1863,  notifying  that  a  commission  had 
been  appointed  to  investigate  the  case  of  violence 
which  had  been  perpetrated  on  Mr.  W.  A.  Greeff, 
and  to  try  and  arrive  at  a  settlement  of  the  line 
question. 


A   LITERARY   CURIOSITY.  191 

There  being  nothing  definite  as  to  the  "  line 
question,"  or  any  other,  in  this  document,  it  is  quite 
unimportant,  and  contains  no  point  to  argue  pro  or  con. 

Annexure  No.  32,  a  letter  from  Governor  Wode- 
house's  Secretary  to  David  Arnot,  3rd  Dec,  1863, 
bearing  only  on  the  proposed  arbitration  of  his  Excel- 
lency, which  never  came  off,  between  Waterboer  and 
the  Free  State  as  to  their  respective  claims  to  the 
Campbell  lands ,  not  the  territory  south  of  the  Vaal, 
which  the  Free  State  from  the  date  of  its  existence 
has  ever  held  and  owned  up  to  the  Vetberg  line. 

Annexures  No.  33  and  No.  34,  a  sketch  and  a  letter 
from  the  Free  State  Government  Secretary  to  David 
Arnot,  dated  30th  November,  1863.  I  regret  being 
unable  to  deal  with  these  two  annexures,  as  I  have 
not  copies  of  the  "  sketch"  and  letter;  but  as  they 
were  supplied  by  the  Free  State  Government  they  must 
have  been  in  support  of  their  case,  not  Waterboer's. 

Annexure  No.  35. — This  document  is  a  literary 
curiosity, — what  it  is,  what  it  means,  or  even  what 
it  was  intended  to  be  about,  being  an  impenetrable 
mystery.  I  venture  to  opine,  however,  after  consider- 
able deliberation,  investigation,  and  waste  of  time, 
that  it  is  either  a  circular  letter  of  condolence,  of  con- 
gratulation, or  proposal,  from  old  Andries  Waterboer's 
Eaad,  anent  the  pretended  treaty  or  agreement, 
Annexure  No.  5,  of  which  we  disposed  in  our 
last  chapter.  "It  is  beyond  me"  as  the  country 
editor  observed  of  the  production  of  a  very  scien- 
tific contributor — the  philosopheme  thereof  is  buried 
altogether  too  deep  in  the  darkness  of  a  Tartarean 
obscurity  for  any  ordinary  mental  vision  to  discover. 
It  bears  date  "  Griqua  Town,  19th  June,  1838  ";   con- 


192        WATERBOER    PROVES    THE   FREE-STATE    CASE  ! 

Bequently,  four  and  a  half  months  previous  to  the  date 
of  the  pretended  treaty,  by  which  it  is,  of  course, 
superseded.  It  is  quite  irrelevant  to  the  case  except 
in  so  far  as  the  following  two  sentences  may  be  sup- 
j)Osed  to  concern  it,  viz.  : 

A  reference  to  "  the  two  Governments  and  the  two 
Chiefs  in  the  Griqua  land."  But  this  subject  we  have 
exhausted  by  our  review  of  Annexure  5,  in  the  last 
chapter. 

The  other  sentence  plainly  admits  the  existence  of 
a  third  Government  and  a  third  Chief  in  Griqua- 
land : — 

"  Should  the  unwise  Cornelius  Kok,  or  his  followers,  create  any 
disorder  in  the  Griqua  country,  it  will  be  totally  at  their  risk." 

Annexure  No.  36  is  a  notice  alleged  to  have  been  issued 
by  Adam  Kok,  in  1862.  We  have  already  investigated 
it  in  Chapter  V.  Although  it  denies  the  sale  of  the 
Campbell  grounds,  it  fully  proves  that  the  very  lands 
now  seized  by  Waterboer  and  Co.  ivere  sold  to  the  Free  State. 
u  I  desire  to  have  it  made  known  that  the  right  sold 
for  my  account,  by  Mr.  Henry  Harvey,  to  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  Orange  Free  State,  confines  itself  to  the 
south  bank  of  the  Vaal  River,  and  in  no  respect  applies 
to  territory  north  of  the  Vaal  River." 

Annexure  No.  37  and  No.  38  are  similar  to  the  last. 
One,  No.  37,  is  in  the  form  of  a  letter  from  Adam  Kok 
to  "  his  Honour  J.  H.  Brand,  President  of  the 
Orange  Free  State  ;  "  but  this  letter  President  Brand 
denies  ever  receiving,  and  his  unsupported  word,  I 
take  it,  is  of  more  value  than  the  combined 
asseverations  of  all  the  Griquas  who  ever  lived, — 
such  notorious  rogues  and  liars  are  they.     Although 


THE   FEEE    STATE    CASE   ADMITTED.  193 

these  last  three  documents  dispute  the  sale  of 
the  Campbell  grounds,  singularly  enough  they  admit 
the  right  of  the  Free  State,  by  purchase,  to  the  land 
"south  of  the  Vaal,"  which,  in  reality,  is  alone  the 
bone  of  contention;  the  diamond  fields  being  situate 
thereon,  whilst  there,  alone,  the  British  filibusters, — 
magistrates,  police  a  la  militaire  and  of  ordinary  type, 
the  vast  crowd  of  officials,  both  great  and  small, — are 
firmly  fixed,  "  non  missura  cutem,  nisi  plena  cruoris, 
hirudo." 

Annexure  No.  39  purports  to  be  a  copy  of  a  treaty 
entered  into  between  the  late  A.  Waterboer  and  the 
late  Batlaping  Kafir  Chief,  Mahura,  on  the  22nd  April, 
1842.  But  as  this  is  only  an  obsolete  treaty  (if  genuine,, 
for  it  is  disputed)  as  to  the  boundary  between  two 
defunct  chiefs,  it  does  not  possess  any  intrinsic  value. 
There  is  but  one  point  in  it  which  can  be,  and  has  been, 
used  as  an  indirect  proof  in  favour  of  Waterboei?s 
claims,  viz. :  the  sentence  which  continues  the  mutual 
boundary  line  from 

"  Between  Koning.  and  Daniel's  Kuil  ...  in  a  straight  line 
away  to  the  north  side  of  Boetchap." 

This  w as  Mahura's  southern  boundary,  but  certainly 
not  Waterboer's  northern  line,  for  as  Diagrams  D., 
&c,  show,  the  ground  of  the  Chief  Barend  Barendse, 
extending  from  Boetchap  to  between  Koning  and 
Daniel's  Kuil,  possessed  exactly  that  northern  frontier. 
Moreover,  in  Annexure  No.  7  we  have  seen  that  A. 
AVaterboer  himself  declared  that  one  of 

"  The  nations  residing  against  his  boundaries  were,  on  the  north- 
east, a  tribe  of  Koranas" 

— the  people  of  Barendse.  Still,  supposing  the  docu- 
ment to  be  genuine,  the  boundary  line  is  correctly 


194  "the  trail  of  the  serpent." 

described  so  far  as  Mahura's  Kafirs  are  concerned, 
and  that  was  most  likely  the  object  of  the  treaty, 
Barendse  and  the  Griquas  being  allies,  and  their 
northern  boundary  line,  if  joined^  being  also  correctly 
defined. 

10.  Annexure  No.  40  is  a  much  more  important  paper. 
First  of  all,  it  bears  date  "  Tawns,  18th  April,  1864," 
subsequent  to  the  appearance  upon  the  scene  of  Water- 
boer's  servant  David,  on  whose  evomition  we  have  seen 
the  whole  fraudulent  scheme  to  obtain  the  lands  of  the 
late  Cornelius  Kok  began  to  assume  both  form  and  sub- 
stance. Above  all,  it  is  evidently  written  as  a  reply  to 
promjitings  and  questionings  by  Waterboer  and  Co. 

We  will  deal  seriatim  with  every  point  it  contains 
relative  to  the  case. 

1.  The  two  first  paragraphs  of  this  document  merely 
express  the  Chief  Mahura's  confirmation  of  the  boundary 
line  as  agreed  to  by  him  and  Waterboer  in  the  alleged 
treaty  of  1842, — the  previous  Annexure.  The  third 
paragraph,  however,  would  be  of  a  most  gratuitous  and 
irrelevant  character,  did  we  not  perceive  that  it 
constitutes  a  reply  to  Mr.  David  Arnot's  ingenious 
promptings.    We  quote  it  in  extenso : — 

Paragraph  3,  Annexure  No.  40.  Remarks  thereon. 

(a)  "  I  further  declare  andmake  (a)  "In  opposition  to  this  ab- 

known  that  the  late  Cornelius  Kok  surd   and     sweeping    assertion, 

was  not  known,  or  recognized  by  we  merely  have  to  mention  the 

me  or  any  one  else  as  Captain  of  evidence  of  the  eleven  witnesses 

Campbell,  as  far  as  I  know,  as  an  who  swore  to  Captain  Cornelius 

independent  chief,    but  only  as  Kok's     position    as     an     in<h>- 

a  petty  Captain   of  the  late  An-  pendent  Chief,  at  the  meeting  at 

dries  Waterboer,  and  who  also,  Nooitgedacht,  already  quoted  in 


mahura's  evidence  reviewed. 


195 


in  the  year  1826,  when  the 
British  Government  consented  to 
the  appointment  by  the  Chief, 
Andries  Waterboer,  of  the  said 
Cornelius  Kok,  as  under  Cap- 
tain of  Campbell,  made  the  same 
known  to  me." 


Chapter  VII. ;  the  report  of  the 
British  Eesident,  Major  Warden, 
quoted  in  Chapter  III. — "On  the 
24th  ult.  I  met  Captain  Cornelius 
Kok  and  his  Raad  .  .  .  but  both 
Waterboer  and  Kok  are  Chiefs 
residing  with    their    people  be- 


yond the  Vaal  .  .  .    The  country 

claimed  by  the  two  captains  is  at  least  fifty  miles  in  length,"  .  .  .  &c;  to 
the  whole  of  the  evidence  we  have  aready  adduced  ;  and  to  the  official 
recognition  of  Cornelius  Kok  as  Chief  of  Campbell,  by  the  Governor 
of  the  Cape,  in  a  despatch  dated  "  1st  May,  1848,"  and  signed  by 
"  Eichard  Southey,  Secretary."  This  document  forms  Annexure 
JVb.  1.  on  the  Free  State  side,  and  will  be  quoted  by  and  by  ver- 
batim. 

2.  The  fourth  paragraph  of  Annexure  No.  40  con- 
tinues : — 


Paragraph  4,  Annexure  No.  40. 

(b)  "  I  declare,  also,  with  a 
clear  conscience,  and  on  that 
account  make  known,  that  the 
late  Cornelius  Kok,  of  Campbell, 
never  had  any  right,  or  had 
any  thing  to  say  whether  in 
respect  of  Griqua  boundary  lines, 
and  such  was  also  the  case  in 
respect  of  my  under-captain  in 
my  territory." 


Remarks  thereon. 

fb)  In  refutation  of  this 
equally  false  statement,  we  need 
but  refer  to  the  line  between 
Campbell  and  Griqua  Town  ;  the 
line  from  Eamah  to  David's 
Graf,  made  between  Adam  and 
Cornelius  Kok  alone ;  and  the 
Vetberg-line  made  between  Water- 
boer and  Cornelius  Kok  ;  subjects 
already  fully  dealt  with  in  these 
pages.  We  may  also  mention 
the  treaty  made  on  the  8th  Aug., 
1840,  between  "  Cornelius  Kok  and  Jan  Bloem,  Captains,"  and  Mr. 
Oberholster,  leader  of  the  emigrant  farmers,  which  we  quote  in 
the  Annexure  to  Chapter  X  ;  and  of  which  original  copies  are  known 
to  be  in  the  hands  of  the  Chief,  Adam  Kok,  and  other  govern- 
ments. 

Why  did  Mahura   "  declare  and  make  known  "  the 
assertions  contained  in  paragraphs  3  and  4  ?      They 

o2 


196 


MAIIURA   CONTRADICTS    HIMSELF. 


arc  events  which  never  concerned  him,  and  the  only 
reason  one  can  imagine  is  that  he  responded  to  sugges- 
tions from  Mr.  David  Arnot.  We  have  seen  that  the 
date  coincides,  whilst  the  whole  tenour  of  the  document 
is  in  the  style  of  a  reply  to  a  previous  communication. 


3.  The    fifth    and    sixth     paragraphs    define    the 
boundaries  : — 


Paragraphs  5  and  6,  Annexure 
No.  40. 

"  The  boundary  lines  known 
in  1820  and  previously,  between 
the  Batlapin  and  Griqua  terri- 
tory, are  as  follow  : — 

"Commencing  from  the  north- 
ern point  of  Langeberg,  east- 
wards, including  Maramani  and 
Nelsfontein;  and  to  the  north 
of  Boetchap,  including  Eoelofs- 
fontein  to  Platberg  on  the  east 
lank  of  the  Vaal  River,  as  our 
territorial  corner  beacon." 

We  will  now  quote  verbatim, 
from  Annexure  No.  39,  the  follow- 
ing definition  of  boundary  : — 

"  2.  The  boundary  line  be- 
tween the  two  districts  will  now 
be  plainly  fixed,  commencing  on 
the  north  point  of  the  Lange- 
berg, and  eastwards,  pointing  a 
little  south  from  Nakoning ;  and 
further,  on  the  half-way  between 
Maramani  and  Klipfontein  ;  and 
further  projecting  from  Nels- 
fontein, between  Koning  and 
Daniel's  Kuil;  and  from  there 


Remarks  thereon. 

In  the  two  first  paragraphs  of 
this  paper,  Mahura  declares 
tl  that  the  boundary  of  our 
territories  still  are  as  stated  in 
writing,  in  1842" — Annexure  No. 
39, — and  that  these  "  were  the 
same  as  were  known  in  1823, 
when  I  began  to  reign,  as  well 
as  previous  to  that." 

But  he  here  very  distinctly 
contradicts  himself,  for  in  the 
alleged  Treaty  of  1842  no  men- 
tion whatever  is  made  of  either 
"  Platberg,"  or  the  "  east,"  or 
any  other  "  bank  of  the  Vaal 
River."  Platberg  being  that 
terminal  point  of  Waterboer  and 
Co.'s  fraudulently  concocted  line 
from  '  Eamah,  vid  David's  Graf, 
to  Platberg,"  by  which  they  seek 
to  include  the  diamond  fields  in 
the  ground  they  have  plundered 
from  the  Free  State,  no  doubt 
the  crafty  David  prompted  the 
insertion  in  Annexure  No.  40  of 
the  words,  "  Platberg,"  &c.  ;  at 
all  events,   the    gross   garbling 


mahura's  evidence  superseded.  197 

in  a  straight  line  away  to  the  and  falsification  of  the  definition 
north  side  of  Boetchap,  includ-  of  boundaries  in  the  alleged 
ing  Roelofsfontein."  treaty    of    1842     is     apparent. 

Where,  in  the  opposite  parallel 
column,  occurs  a  word  about 
"  Platberg  "  or  the  "  Vaal  "  ? 
And  nothing  more  is  said  of 
boundaries  in  the  alleged  treaty. 


In  concluding  our  review  of  Annexure  No.  40,  we 
have  to  point  out  the  fact  that  its  reputed  author, 
Mahura,  is  now  dead ;  that  he  was  the  only  chief 
whose  signature  is  put  thereto  ;  and  that  the  document 
is  rendered  null  and  void,  is  in  fact,  entirely  super- 
seded by  the  proclamation  inserted  at  the  end  of  our 
1st  Chapter,  wherein  no  less  than  five  Batlaping  and 
Barolong  chiefs,  including  Gasibone,  the  paramount 
chief,  in  August,  1870,  protested  against,  and  utterly 
repudiated,  all  Waterboer' s  acts:  "We  further  say 
that  the  Chief  Waterboer  is  no  chief  in  keeping  with 
our  laws  .  .  .  and  neither  did  we,  nor  any  of  us, 
ever  at  any  time  acknowledge  him  as  such,"  &c. 

11.  Annexure  No.  41,  being  simply  a  proclamation 
issued  by  N.  Waterboer,  15th  October,  1862,  warning 
all  parties  that  sales  of  land  in  Griqua  land,  by  Griquas 
or  others,  would  not  be  recognized,  and  proclaiming  the 
boundaries  of  Griqua  land  very  irregularly,  requires  no 
comment, — it  is  not  evidence,  and  it  only  concerns  his 
own  lands,  which  are  not  in  dispute. 

Annexures  Nos.  42,  43,  44,  45,  and  46  are  all  very 
holy  and  righteous  missionary  reports,  extending,  with 
one  exception,  from  the  year  1840  to  1843.  They  are 
not  evidence ;  they  are  merely  personal,  unsworn  state  - 
ments ;  neither  are  they  political  records,  nor  in  any 


198     WATERBOER   AGAIN    PROVES    HIS    OPPONENT'S    CASE. 

way  relevant ;  and  we  must  object  to  drag  these  fervent 
and  theological  outpourings  into  the  case. 

Annexures  Nos.  47,  48,  and  49  are  letters  from  Mr. 
Owen,  British  Assistant-Commissioner,  bearing  date 
March,  1852,  and  are  all  written  to  Adam  Kok,  con- 
cerning solely  his  dispute  at  that  time  with  the  Orange 
River  Sovereignty  Government,  about  the  u  alienable  " 
and  "  inalienable  "  arrangements. 

Watcrboer  has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  this 
correspondence  ;  even  if  he  had,  Adam  Kok's  subse- 
quent sale  of  his  entire  lands  to  the  Free  State,  and  the 
exodus  of  himself  and  people  therefrom,  would  render 
it  nugatory. 

Annexures  Nos.  50  and  51  are  equally  irrelevant,  being 
communications  from  C.  W.  Hutton,  Landdrost  of 
Fauresmith,  to  Adam  Kok  (July,  1854),  informing  him 
that  thirty-one  farms  "  had  been  sold  and  voluntarily 
registered  in  his  office  by  Griqua  subjects !  "  If  these 
letters  prove  anything  regarding  the  case,  it  is  that 
the  Free  State  legally  acquired  by  purchase  part  of 
the  very  ground  now  falsely  claimed  by  Water boer, 
and  just  as  falsely  seized  for  him  by  the  Cape  Colonial 
Government ! 

Annexure  No.  52  is  simply  a  letter  to  the  President 
of  the  Orange  Free  State,  dated  11th  November,  1857, 
from  Captn.  A.  Kok,  containing  a  proposal  for  him 
and  Waterboer  to  meet  the  President  in  the  middle  of 
December,  1857. 

Annexure  No.  53  (and  last,  thank  Heaven !)  pro- 
fesses to  be  a  "  letter  from  W.  0.  Corner,  Clerk  to  the 
Court  of  Philippolis,  to  N.  Waterboer,  8th  February, 
1860,  requesting  his  and  his  council's  presence  at  a 


MAJORITY  OF  WATERBOER'S  EVIDENCE  IRRELEVANT.    199 

trial   of    two    Griquas    charged   with    the   crime   of 
murder." 

What  this  has  to  do  with  Waterboer  and  Co.'s  claim 
to  the  line  from  Kamah,  via  David's  Graf,  to  Platberg, 
deponent  sayeth  not. 

The  Annexures  referred  to  in  this  last  Section  1 1 
of  our  analysis  of  Waterboer's  documentary  evidence, 
have  evidently,  one  and  all  (from  their  absurdly 
irrelevant  nature),  simply  been  produced  to  swell  the 
said  evidence,  and  make  it  appear  extensive  and  im- 
portant. No  less  than  32  of  the  53  Annexures  are  utterly 
irrevelant  to  Waterboer's  claim  ;  whilst  of  the  remaining 
21,  more  than  half  really  constitute  proof  in  favour  of 
the  Free  State  case.  Mr.  David  Arnot  seems  to  have 
been  the  arranger  of  this  huge,  unwieldly,  pointless 
mass  of  evidence — sa  boule  est  demeuree  ! 


200     RELATIVE  VALUE  OF  THE  DOCUMENTARY  EVIDENCE. 


CHAPTER   X. 

Documentary  Evidence  produced  by  the  Government 
of  the  Orange  Free  State,  at  the   Meeting  at 

NOOITGEDACHT,    IN    PROOF    OF    THEIR    RlGHT    TO  AdA- 
MANTIA. 

1.  Official  Kecognition  of  Cornelius  Kok  as  a  Territorial 
or  Independent  Chief  by  the  Colonial  Government. — 2. 
Eight  Title-deeds  to  Farms  within  the  Territory  now  seized 
as  Waterboer's  ;    the  same  having  been  issued  twenty-two 

years    ago    by    the     british  government  ! 3.    proof   that 

Adam  Kok  succeeded  to  the  Chieftainship  of  Cornelius. — 4 
and  5.  Title-deeds  given  by  Cornelius  Kok  in  the  disputed 
Territory. — 6  and  7.  Further  Proof  of  Adam  Kok's  suc- 
cession to  Cornelius. — 8.  Receipts  of  the  Purchase-money 
paid  by    the    free    state   for  part    of  the     ground   now 

seized  by  waterboer. 9.  positive   proof   that    cornelius 

Kok  was  an  Independent  Chief,  and  that  Adam  Kok  suc- 
ceeded him. — 10.  Waterboer's  Claim  Disproved  by  his  own 
Words. 

Although,  at  the  meeting  at  Nooitgedacht,  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  Orange  Free  State  produced  a  far 
smaller  quantity  of  papers  as  documentary  evidence  ; 
it  will  be  seen  that  in  quality  they  altogether  beat  their 
adversaries,  Messrs.  Waterboer  and  Co.,  out  of  the  field. 

Whereas  not  more  than  two  or  three  of  the  whole 
5 3  documents  brought  forward  by  Waterboer  were  un- 
doubtedly genuine,  o:*  sufficiently  attested  to  constitute 
legal  evidence,  it  will  be  seen  that  almost  every  paper 


A  PILL   FOR   MR   SOUTHEY.  20 1 

to  which  our  attention  will  now  be   given  is  either 
official  or  authenticated. 

Furthermore,  we  must  not  forget  that  the  object  of 
the  Free  State  is  exactly  the  reverse  of  Waterboer  and 
Co.'s,  viz.,  that  it  is  to  prove  that  Cornelius  Kokwas 
an  independent  chief ;  that  Waterboer  has  not  any  right 
to  the  lands  he  claims — either  the  Campbell  grounds  or 
South  Adamantia ;  and  that  to  the  last  of  these  terri- 
tories the  right  of  the  Free  State  is  indefeasible— east 
of  the  Vetberg  line,  or  Albania — whilst  to  the  former 
its  claim  is,  at  all  events,  better  than  his. 

1.  Annexure  No.  1  is  a  most  important  State  paper. 
Standing  alone,  it  is  quite  sufficient  to  cover  the  Cape 
Colonial  Government — and  especially  its  Secretary, 
Mr.  South ey — with  confusion  ;  for  it  clearly  disproves, 
by  their  own  former  deed  and  words,  the  position  they 
noiv  maintain  ostensibly  in  support  of  Waterboer,  but 
in  reality  to  retain  the  diamond-fields  themselves,  viz., 
that  mendacious  statement  that  the  late  Captain 
Cornelius  Kok  was  not  an  independent  chief,  but  was 
Waterboer* 's  under-captain  or  subordinate. 

The  original  of  the  following  document  is  in  the 
possession  of  the  Free  State  Government,  and  in  the 
archives  of  Cape  Town  an  official  copy  should  exist. 
Its  authentic  nature  is,  moreover,  attested  by  the 
Free  State  Government,  and  by  the  surviving  members 
of  the  late  Cornelius  Kok's  Raad,  &c. 

"  Government  House,  Cape  Town,  1st  May,  1848. 
"  Sir, — I  have  the  honour,  by  direction  of  the  High  Commis- 
sioner, to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  memorial,  praying  to  be 
recognized  as  a  Native  Chief,  in  connection  with  the  Colony ;  and  to 
acquaint  you  that  his  Excellency  has  been  pleased  to  accede  to  your 
prayer,  and"  (?  has)  "  given  directions  to  Major  Warden  to  have  the 


202  RECOGNITION    OF    C.    KOK's    INDEPENDENCE. 

boundary  of  your  territory  properly  defined  by  a  Land  Commission, 
which  will  soon  enter  upon  its  duties. 

1 1 1  have  the  honour  to  be,  Sir, 

"  Your  most  obedient  humble  servant, 

"Richard  Southey,   Secretary. 
u  Mr.  Cornelius  Kok,  Chief  of  Griquas,  Campbell  Town. 
11  (A  true  copy),  F.  K.  Hohne,  Government  Secretary." 

The  terms  and  meaning  of  this  despatch  are  clear 
and  unmistakable.  Cornelius  Kok  was  officially  recog- 
nised as  "  a  native  chief/'  and  as  "  Chief  of  Griquas/ ' 
not  as  an  inferior  officer  of  Waterboer's  ;  whilst,  above 
all,  the  lands  over  which  he  ruled  are  described  as 
"  your  territory/'  not  Waterboer's.  As  for  the  land 
commission,  all  we  know  is  that  it  recognized  Cornelius 
Kok  as  the  rightful  territorial  chief  of  the  land  on  the 
other  side — or  north-east  of  the  line  then  existing 
between  himself  and  Adam  Kok,  from  Ramah  to 
David 's  Graf  and  further  on  towards  Pniel ;  that  it 
sanctioned  purchases  of  farms  on  that  land,  from  him, 
by  white  settlers,  who  thereupon  received  British  land 
certificates ,  or  title-deeds  from  the  Sovereignty  Govern- 
ment ;  and  that  it  recognized  him  only  as  the  inde- 
pendent chief  of  the  Campbell  lands. 

The  State  paper,  Annexure  No.  1,  has  neither  been 
cancelled  nor  repudiated,  nor  has  the  accuracy  of  its 
terms  and  expressions  regarding  Cornelius  Kok  ever 
yet  been  modified.  How  Messrs.  Southey  and  col- 
leagues of  the  late  Cape  Government  manage  to 
surmount  this  fact, — this  very  obstinate  fact — how  they 
dispose  of  the  bull  in  their  path,  horns  and  all,  history, 
as  yet,  tells  not. 

Annexures  Nos.  2  and  3,  being  instructions  to  the  com- 
bined Griqua   and   Free  State   Land  Commission   of 


PROOF    OF    C.    KOK'S    INDEPENDENCE.  203 

1861,  signed  by  President  Pretorius  and  the  chief 
Adam  Kok,  and  referring  to 

"  All  uninspected  ground,  both  in  the  territory  of  Captain  A. 
Kok  and  of  the  late  Cornelius  Kok, " 

have  previously  been  noticed  in  Chapter  VI.  They 
are  genuine  and  undoubted  official  papers ;  and  just 
as  incontrovertible  is  the  fact  that  they  prove  that  both 
the  Free  State  and  the  Griqua  (Philippolis)  Govern- 
ments recognized  Cornelius  Kok  as  a  territorial  chief. 

Annexure  No.  4,  copy  of  the  power  of  attorney,  by 
virtue  of  which  Mr.  Henry  Harvey  sold,  for  Captain 
Adam  Kok,  to  the  Orange  Free  State,  all  grounds  then 
remaining  to,  or  which  might  "  be  found  to  belong  to 
the  Griqua  Government "  of  Philippolis,  including,  of 
course,  as  the  Free  State  rightly  maintains,  the 
Campbell  grounds — all  former  territory  of  his  late 
uncle,  Cornelius  Kok,  to  whose  rights  and  titles  we 
have  so  clearly  seen  that  he  succeeded  on  that  old 
chief's  abdication  in  his  favour. 

This  document  being  quoted  verbatim  in  Chapter  V., 
requires  no  further  notice  here. 

Annexure  No.  5  may  be  treated  simply  as  Nos.  2  and 
3  ;  it  is  also  an  agreement  between  President  Pretorius 
and  Captain  Adam  Kok 

"To  have  the  grounds  of  the  present  territory  of  Philippolis  .  .  . 
inspected  by  a  commission  of  four  members  .  .  .  and  to  do  the 
same  with  the  lands  of  Cornelius  Kok" 

This  document  bears  date  "  Philippolis,  12th  June, 
1860.  Its  language  is  so  clearly  in  accord  with  my 
argument  regarding  the  late  Cornelius  Kok  as  to 
require  no  comment. 


204       THE    BRITISH    GOVERNMENT    PROVES    THE    CASE. 

Annexure  No.  C  : — ■ 

11  Minut9s  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Commission  deputed  by  the 
Government  of  the  Orange  Free  State,  to  enquire  into  the  rights  01 
the  Campbell  grounds,  1863," 

containing  the  valuable  sworn  evidence  of  the  Pro- 
visional Captain  of  Campbell,  Dirk  Kok;  Abraham 
Kok,  a  surviving  brother  of  the  late  Captain  Cornelius 
Kok ;  Arie  Samuels,  one  of  that  deceased  chiefs  oldest 
councillors ;  and  the  very  important  testimony  of 
Hendrik  Hendrikse,  Captain  Adam  Kok's  former 
Government  secretary ;  has  already  been  fully  re- 
viewed in  Chapter  VII. 

2.  Annexure  No.  7  consists  of  a  number  of  highly 
important  land  certificates  of  property  within  the 
false  boundary  line  now  claimed  by  Waterboer,  but 
seized  and  occupied  by  the  Colonial  Government. 
These  are  title-deeds  issued  by  the  British  Government 
itself,  all  (but  one)  MORE  THAN 22  YEARS  AGO,  by 
Major  Warden,  as  a  result  of  the  land-commission  referred  to 
in  Annexure  No.  1 !  These  farms,  with  many  others,  were 
made  over  to  the  Government  of  the  Orange  Free  State, 
by  the  treaty  or  convention  printed  in  extenso  at  the 
end  of  our  3rd  chapter,  from  Article  IV.,  of  which  we 
find  that,  with  regard  to  those  of  Her  Majesty's  former 
subjects  electing  to  remain  within  the  new  state, — 

"  Such  persons  shall  be  considered  to  be  guaranteed  in  the  pos- 
session of  their  estates  by  the  Now  Orange  Eiver  Government." 

During  the  whole  period  of  the  Free  States'  poli- 
tical existence  (nineteen  years!),  these  farms  have 
been  to  all  intents  and  purposes  part  and  parcel  of  its 
territory — three  of  them,  indeed,  viz.,  the  farms 
Driekopspan,  No.  234,  Waterbak,  No.   235,  and  Scholtz- 


FREE    STATE    RIGHT    BY    BRITISH    TITLE-DEEDS.       205 

fontein,  No.  380,  being  the  frontier  farms  over  against 
the  Vetberg  line,  referred  to  by  Annexures  Nos.  24,  26, 
and  27,  of  Waterboer's  case,  noticed  in  Chapter  IX., 
and  also  at  greater  length  in  Chapter  IV.  Never  have 
these  farms  being  without  the  effective  and  actual  juris- 
diction of  the  Free  State  law  courts;  never  has  a 
solitary  Griqua  subject  of  Waterboer's  been  resident 
thereon  as  an  occupier  of  land ;  yet  now,  forsooth,  in 
order  to  steal  the  diamond-fields,  after  both  formally 
and  tacitly  recognizing  the  right  and  title  of  the  Free 
State  during  all  those  nineteen  years,  the  avaricious 
Government  of  the  Cape  Colony  declares  that  territory 
to  be  Waterboer's,  seizes  it  by  armed  force,  and  retains 
it  for  themselves  ! 

Although  I  have  seen,  in  the  Free  State  archives  at 
Bloemfontein,  the  original  deeds,  and  possess  verbatim 
copies,  the  numbers,  dates  of  the  certificates,  and 
names  of  the  farms  are  quite  sufficient  to  quote,  viz : — 

"  Land  certificates  issued  by  Major  "Warden  : — 

No.  70.  Dated  19th  December,  1848.   '  Valschfontein.' 


71. 

11 

11            11            ii            ii 

*  Kareelaagte.' 

234. 

11 

16th  March,  1849.    ,, 

'Driekopspan.'  * 

235. 

n 

ii         ii          ii         ii 

'Waterbak.'* 

350. 

11 

24th  July,  1850.        „ 

'DeKuilen.' 

356. 

11 

14th  August,  1850.  ,, 

1  Klippan.' 

380. 

it 

1st  March,  1852.       ,, 

1  Scholtzfontein.'  * 

349. 

11 

24th  July,  1850.         „ 

«Klokfontein.,"(l) 

The  farms  marked  thus  (#)  will  be  seen   against  the 
Vetberg  line  on  Diagram  C,  at  the  end  of  Chapter  IV. 


(I)  A  further  list  of  22  other  farms,  with  British  Sovereignty  land 
certificates,  and  all  within  the  line  now  claimed  by  Waterooer,  will  be  found 
in  the  Annexure  at  the  end  of  this  Chapter. 


206     HOW  THE  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT  ACTED. 

Although  the  territory  wrested  from  the  Orange  Free 
State  by  Messrs.  Waterboer  and  Co.  contains  no  less 
than  140  Free  State  farms,  including  those  above, 
many  of  which  possess  British  Sovereignty  title-deeds, 
and  most  of  the  others  original  " requests"  (or  title- 
deeds)  from  Captain  Adam  Kok,  and  Captain  Cornelius 
Kok,  is  it  not  an  astonishing  fact  that  Waterboer  has 
not  produced  even  one  single  document  or  title-deed, 
such  as  these?  But  then  the  modus  operandi  of  the  frau- 
dulent association  is  simply  to  deny  everything,  even 
although  they  never  prove  anything.  They  say,  "Ah  ! 
but  those  farms  were  all  sold  illegally.  They  did  not 
belong  to  the  Chiefs  who  originally  sold  them.  Water- 
boer was  the  rightful  owner." 

And  upon  this  Hottentot-Mulatto's  sole  and  unsup- 
ported ipse  dixit  to  that  effect,  has  the  Colonial  Govern- 
ment acted.  As  for  Waterboer's  case,  absolutely 
nothing  has  been  proved  in  its  favour  (and  I  challenge 
contradiction),  although  territorial  rights  and  titles, 
from  11  to  32  years'  undisputed  possession  have 
been  now  suddenly  disputed  and  seized  by  armed 
force ! 

3.  Annexure  No.  8.  This  document  is  very  impor- 
tant, as  proving  that  Adam  Kok  of  Philippolis,  sub- 
sequent to  his  succession  to  the  Campbell  lands  by  the 
resignation  of  Cornelius  Kok  in  1857,  did  absolutely  rule 
and  dispose  of  those  lands  as  the  territorial  chief.  It  is  a 
title-deed  (or  "request,"  in  the  vernacular)  given  by 
him  in  the  very  territory  now  claimed  by  Waterboer, 
and  seized  by  the  Colonial  Government ;  the  original 
is  in  the  possession  of  the  Free  State  Government ; 
neither  it,  the  sale,  nor  the  occupation  were  ever  before 
disputed  by  Waterboer ! 


EVIDENCE    OF    C.    KOK's    INDEPENDENCE.  207 

We  quote  the  document : — 

u  A  new  request  is  granted  by  me,  the  undersigned,  to  Adam 
Kok,  of  his  farm  called  '  De  Puts'  situated  in  the  district  of  Camp- 
hell.  . ,  ,thus  a  new  request  is  granted  by  me  to  the  burgher  Adam.  Kok, 
of  the  farm  called  '  De  Puts/  as  the  lawful  property  of  him   and 

his  successors." 

"  Adam  Kok,  Kaptijn." 
"Vetberg,  16th  April,  1861." 

This  title-deed  was  sent  to  the  Government  secretary 
of  the  Free  State  for  registration,  and  was  also  attested 
by  Messrs.  Marais  and  Sluiter,  of  Fauresmith,  in  a 
communication  from  that  place,  dated  "  26th  April, 
1861/' 

4.  Annexure  No.  9.  This  document,  being  very  amply 
attested  and  authenticated,  is  an  invaluable  piece  of 
evidence  in  proof  of  the  Free  State  argument,  that 
Cornelius  Kok  was  an  independent  chief,  possessing,  as 
such,  the  right  to  sell  and  alienate  lands.  It  is  a  title- 
deed  granted  by  him. 

"  I,  the  undersigned,  Cornelius  Kok,  Captain  of  Campbell,  hereby 
acknowledge  to  have  well  and  lawfully  sold  to  the  burgher,  Abra- 
ham Kok,  my  farm  called  *  Vogelfontein,'  district  Campbell,  for  the 
sum  of  one  hundred  rix-dollars,  as  the  lawful  property  of  him  and 
his,  with  its  adjoining  lands,  to  wit :  one  hour  on  horse-back, 
square  stepping. 

"  Cornelius  Kok,  Kaptijn. 
"  His  -f  mark." 
"Campbell,  10th  September,  1855. 
"  As  witnesses,  W.  A.  Corner,  Clerk. 
"  Petrus  Goejiman." 

Upon  the  "  10th  of  February,  1864,"  Abraham 
Kok  sold  this  farm  to  a  u  Mr.  William  Davis,"  for  the 
sum  of  6l  three  thousand  five  hundred  rix-dollars ; " 
besides  the  deed  of  sale,  a  "  power  to  transfer"  was 
also  drawn  up.  These  two  documents  were  witnessed 
by  "  Cornelius  Kok,"  Abraham's  son,  and  by  "  Petrus 


208    PROOF  OF  c.  kok's  territorial  chieftainship. 

Goejiman ; ''  the  originals,  as  also  the  original 
"  request,"  or  title-deed,  being  in  the  Free  State 
archives. 

Annexure  No.  11,  being  "  request"  or  deed  of  sale  of 
a  farm  in  the  Campbell  lands,  by  Petrus  J.  Goejiman, 
a  private  individual,  is  quite  unimportant  and  irre- 
levant. 

5.  Annexures  Nos.  10,  12,  and  13.  These  documents, 
being  "  requests  "  or  title-deeds  originally  issued  by 
Captain  Cornelius  Kok,  in  his  capacity  as  independent 
territorial  chief  of  the  Campbell  lands,  are  invaluable. 
Not  one  such  piece  of  documentary  evidence  can  be,  or 
ever  has  been,  produced  by  Waterboer  in  proof  of  his 
newly  alleged  right  or  title  to  the  lands  and  chieftainship  ! 

No.  10.  "  "Request  is  granted  by  me,  the  undersigned,  to  the 
burgher,  Adam  Kok,  of  the  farm  '  Wolvefontein,'  as  the  lawful  pro- 
perty of  him  and  his  heirs ....  The  farm  is  situated  in  the  district  of 
Campbell. 

"I  sign  my  name  with  a  cross. 

"Cornelius  Kok,  Kaptijn. 
"His  +  mark." 
"Campbell,  16th  December,  1853." 
"  As  witnesses,  W.  0.  Corner,  Clerk. 

"  Arie  Samuels,  his  -f  mark,  Councillor." 
No.  12.   "I,  the  undersigned,  Cornelius  Kok,  Captain  of  Camp- 
bell, hereby  acknowledge  to  have  well  and  lawfully  solcL  to  the 
burgher,  James  Corner,  for   the  sum  of  five  hundred    rix-dollars, 
with  the  adjoining  lands,  as  follows: — From  the  old  Kafir  Kraal, 

above  Zand  drift, back  to  the  first-named  beacon      .     .     . 

This  farm  is  situate  on  the  north  side  of  the  Yaal  Eiver,  district 
Campbell. 

"Cornelius  Kok,  Kaptijn. 
"His  +  mark." 
"  As  witnesses  : 

"Henry  Kichard  Bartlett. 
"W.  0.  Corner,  Clerk. 
"Arie  Samuels,  his  +   mark. 
11  Campbell,  8th  December,  1855." 


FKOOF   OF    C.    KOK'S    INDEPENDENCE.  209 

No.  13.  "I,  the  undersigned,  Cornelius  Kok,  Griqua  Chief  of 
Campbell,  hereby  acknowledge  to  have  exchanged  with  the  burgher, 
W.  0.  Corner,  two  farms,  named  'Wolvepan,'  and  '  Wildebeest- 
hoek,'  alias  l  Swartlaagte,'  both  situated  between  Eiet  and  Orange 
Rivers,  for  two  farms  of  mine,  situated  to  the  north  of  the  Vaal  River 
called  'Moeziep' .     .     ." 

('I  sign  my  name  with  a  cross. 

"Cornelius  Kok,  Kaptijn. 
"His  +  mark. 
"  As  witnesses : 

"Henry  Eichard  Bartlett. 
"  Arie  Samuels,  his  -f-  mark. 
"  Hans  Dewee,  his  +  mark. 

"  Campbell,  1 5th  January,  1856." 

The  above  documents  constitute  sucli  palpable 
evidence  in  proof  of  the  late  Cornelius  Kok's  indepen- 
dence, and  his  uncontrolled  disposal  of  the  Campbell 
lands,  &c,  as  to  require  no  comment.  They  are  sales 
and  alienations  of  the  national  property;  and  the 
originals  are  possessed  by  the  Free  State  Government. 

6.  Annexure  No.l±.  This  is  also  a  most  important 
official  paper,  as  proving  that  the  territory  of  the  late 
Barend  Barends,  the  chief  of  the  Korana  tribe,  north 
of  Campbell,  and  "  on  the  north-east "  of  Waterboer's 
territory,  never  belonged  to  the  latter  chief;  and  as 
further  proving  that  the  said  territory,  after  the  resigna- 
tion of  Cornelius  Kok,  devolved,  with  the  Campbell 
lands,  upon  Captain  Adam  Kok,  and  not  upon  Water- 
boer : — 

"  Philippolis. 

"Be  it  known  that,  on  the  8th  day  of  December,  1859,  the  farm 
called  'Pienaarsfontein,'  that  was  formerly  given  hj  Captain 
Barends  to  the  late  Jan  Pienaar,   and"  (?was)  "bynie,  as  having 


210  PROOF  OF  BOUNDARY  BETWEEN  C.  KOK  AND  MAHURA. 

full  power,   given  to  Piet  Pienaar,  and  the  other  heirs   of  the  late 
Jan  Pienaar." 

(The  ground  and  boundaries  of  the  farm  are  then  defined). 

(Signed)     "Adam  Kok,  Captain. 
(t  Witnesses: 

"Lucas  van  der  Westhuizen. 
"Mark  -J-  of  Jan  Pienaar.  " 

Annexure  No.  15.  This  document  also  applies  to  the 
farm  described  in  No.  14.  It  is  also  important  as  in- 
directly jDroving  the  existence  of  a  boundary  line 
between  the  late  chiefs,  Cornelius  Kok  and  Mahura, 
which,  as  we  have  seen,  the  latter,  under  the  influence 
of  Waterboer  and  Co.,  denied,  shortly  before  his  death. 

" Nomansland,  Berg  Vijftig,  April  10th,  1SC4. 

"I,  the  undersigned,  Piet  Pienaar,  declare  this  day  to  have  law- 
fully sold  my  farm  called  '  Pienaarsfontein,'  situated  on  the  other 
side  of  the  Harts  Biver,  between  the  line  of  Cornelius  Ilo/c  and 
Mahura,  to  Mr.  H.  Boeving,  of  Philippolis,  for  the  sum  of  two  hun- 
dred and  fifty  pounds. 

"I,  the  second  undersigned,  H.  Boeving,  resident  at  Philippolis, 
declare  to  have  bought  above  mentioned  place  of  the  owner,  Piet 
Pienaar,  for  the  above  price. 

"This  done  at  Berg  Vijftig,  Nomansland,  April  lOik,  1864. 

"Piet  Pienaar. 
"H.  Boeving. 
""Witnesses: 
"Jan  Jood. 
"Willem  Kok." 

The  second  part  of  Annexure  No.  15,  is  the  follow- 
ing letter  addressed  to  "  the  Secretary  to  Government 
of  the  Orange  Free  State  "  : 

"  Philippolis,  April  18th,  1865. 
«SIR — According  to  decision  of  the  Yolksraad,  dated  February 
13th,  1865,  I  have  the  honour  to  send  you — 


FEEE  STATE  SOVEREIGNTY  RECOGNIZED.      211 

"  1st: — Bequest  of  Adam  Kok  "  (Annexure  No.  14. )  "  of  the 
farm  '  Pienaarsfontein,  situated  in  the  Campbell  grounds,  of  the 
8th  December,  1859. 

"2nd  : — Deed  of  sale  of  the  farm  of  Piet  Pienaar,  to  H.  Boeving, 
dated  April  10th,  1864. 

11  My  client,  Mr.  Heinrich  Boeving,  claims  the  farm  according  to 
deed  of  sale. 

"  Yours,  &c, 

C.  J.  Vels,  Attorney  for  H.  Boeving." 

This  letter  means  that  the  above  documents,  Nos. 
14  and  15,  came  into  the  hands  of  the  Free  State 
Government  after  its  purchase  of  the  Campbell  lands, 
&c.  (on  the  26th  December,  1861),  when,  at  a  sub- 
sequent period,  in  1865,  it  called  upon  all  holders  of 
property  therein  to  submit  title  of  their  rights  and 
possessions. 

Annexure  No.  16.  This  being  the  deed  of  sale,  by 
Mr.  H.  Harvey,  as  Captain  Adam  Kok's  agent,  of 
the  whole  of  the  remaining  "  open  lands"  of  that  chief, 
as  well  as  of  the  late  Cornelius  Kok,  does  not  require  to 
be  noticed  here,  having  already  been  quoted  in  extenso, 
and  fully  reviewed,  in  Chapter  V.  It  is  very  important 
indeed,  as  proving  that  not  only  was  "  all  the  right 
and  title  to  the  Griqua  land  formerly  possessed  by 
Adam  Kok  and  his  people,"  sold  to  the  Government  of 
the  Orange  Free  State,  on  the  26th  December,  1861, 
but  u  likewise  that  of  the  late  Cornelius  Kok." 

Annexures  Nos.  17  and  18  are  not  important  (being 
proclamations  issued  by  the  Government  of  the  Free 
State),  except  so  far  as  they  prove  that  on  those 
dates — respectively  2nd  July,  1862,  and  8th  October, 
1862 — the  Government  had,  and  published,  precisely 
the  rights,  titles,  and  claims  which  are  now  disputed 

p  2 


212  THE    VETBERG    LINE. 

by  fraud,  and  overthrown  by  brute  force.       No.  18  lias 
also  been  noticed  in  Chapter  V. 

Annexure  No.  19  is,  perhaps,  the  most  important  of  all 
the  documentary  evidence  produced.  It  is  the  famous 
Vetberg  Treaty,  or  definition  of  the  "Vetberg  line;" 
which  is  fully  discussed  in  Chapter  IV.;  and  to  which 
we  have  seen  by  the  most  irrefutable  and  ample  testi- 
mony, the  Griqua  captains,  or  chiefs,  Adam  Kok, 
Cornelius  Kok,  Jan  Blocm,  and  Waterboer,  both  col- 
lectively and  individually,  and  in  conjunction  with  their 
respective  raads  or  councillors,  gave  their  unqualified 
approval  and  consent,  at  Vetberg,  on  the  "  10th  October, 
1855 ;  though  Waterboer  now,  to  attain  his  object  in 
the  fraudulent  and  successful  conspiracy  to  obtain  the 
diamond  fields,  denies  all  knowledge  thereof!  I  would 
most  particularly  urge  upon  my  readers  the  indisput- 
able fact  that,  if  the  real  existence  of  the  Vetberg 
Treaty  or  line  be  once  proved,  the  entire  claim  of 
Waterboer  and  Co.  falls  to  the  ground. 

7.  Annexures  Nos.  20  and  21  also  constitute  very 
valuable  evidence  in  proof  of  the  Free  State  case; 
indeed,  if  they  are  authentic,  the  adverse  case  is  dis- 
posed of ;  and  they  are  sworn  to  and  attested  by  many 
persons  (nearly  all  those  who  appeared  as  witnesses  at 
Xooitgedacht),  some  of  whom  arc  the  (surviving)  in- 
dividuals mentioned  in  the  documents ! 

No.  20  is  an  original  certificate  granted  by  Adam 
Kok,  at  the  futile  meeting  held  between  him  and  Water- 
boer in  1861,  at  Vetberg,  when  an  exchange  of  part  of 
the  Campbell  lands  for  part  of  Albania  was  the  subject 
of  discussion,  and  which  certificate,  as  we  have  seen 
(Chapter  V.),  was  neither  challenged  nor  disputed  by 
Waterboer  at  the  time,  nor,  indeed,  ever  after — except 


PROOF   OF   A.   KOK'S    SUCCESSION    TO    C.    KOK.         213 

since  his  present  preposterous  claim — when,  in  a 
general  sort  of  way,  he,  of  course,  indirectly  denies 
all  the  Free  State  evidence : 

"  This  is  to  certify,  that  Jan  and  Hendrik  Ba  rtlett  receive  full 
right  through  me,  the  undersigned,  to  dispose  of  all  his  rights  to 
ground  over  the  Vaal  River,  district  Campbell^  to  whosoever  ho 
chooses. 

"Adam  Kok,  Captain. 
"  Vetberg,  1 6  th  April,  1861. 

In  our  investigation  (Chapter  VII.)  of  the  oral 
evidence  brought  forward  at  Nooitgedacht,  we  have 
.seen  that,  amonsgt  others,  Mr.  W.  0.  Corner,  the 
actual  writer  of  this  very  document,  swore  to  the  facts  of 
its  existence  ! 

No,  21  is  a  renewed  title-deed  granted  by  Adam 
Kok,  as  successor  of  his  uncle,  Cornelius,  in  the  Camp- 
bell grounds  Waterboer  pretends  were  always  his  ! 

"I,  the  undersigned,  do  hereby  grant  a  new  request  to  the 
burgher,  Arie  Samuels,  of  the  farm  called  '  Koopmans,'  ivhich  was 
formerly  given  by  Captain  Cornelius  Kok,  of  Campbell,  which  request 
has  been  lost  or  mislaid,  and  which  request  was  granted  in  1855  ; 
therefore  a  new  request  is  granted  to  the  burgher,  Arie  Samuels,  of 
the  farm  called  '  Koopmans,'  with  its  adjoining  lands,  as  formerly- 
granted,  as  his  lawful  property. 

"Adam  Kok,  Captain. 

' '  Campbell,  0  tli  April,  1861." 

These  documents  require  no  comment,  The  onus 
probandi,  we  all  know,  rests  on  the  person  making 
a  charge ;  let  Waterboer  and  Co.  refute  the  above 
Annexures  if  they  can ! 

8.  Annexure  J\To.  22  consists  of  receipts,  signed  by 
Mr.  H.  Harvey,  of  the  purchase  money  of  the  former 


"  £1,020  0 

0 

550  0 

0 

2,218  7 

1 

547  10 

9 

410  10 

9 

300  0 

0 

214  FIGURE*    PROVE   THE    FREE   STATE    RIGHTS. 

lands  of  the  late  Cornelius  Kok,  and  all  the  remaining 
territory  of  the  Chief  Adam  Kok,  paid  over  to  him  as 
the  latter  s  agent,  by  the  Government  of  the  Orange 
Free  State,  in  accordance  with  the  terms  of  the  deed 
of  sale  entered  into  on  the  26th  December,  1801, 
quoted  at  length  in  Chapter  V. 

From  page  5  of  the  u  Minutes  of  the  Meeting  at 
Nooitgedacht,"  I  take  the  following  list  of  the  dates 
and  amounts  of  the  receipts  in  question  : 

22nd  April,  1862. 

20th  Feb.  18G3. 

20th  June,  18G7. 

19th  March,  1863. 

.  .   20th  August      ,, 
20th  May  ,, 

These  figures  speak  louder  than  words.  No  one 
denies  that  the  money  was  paid  by  the  Free  State,  and 
duly  received  by  Adam  Kok.  As  we  have  previously 
fully  shown  both  in  Chapters  V.  and  VII.,  no  one 
at  the  time,  nor  for  long  after,  denied  the  undoubted 
fact  that  the  lands  of  the  late  Cornelius  Kok  were  in- 
cluded amongst  those  sold,  although  the  matter  was 
fully  set  forth  in  the  deed  of  sale.  No  one,  moreover, 
can  deny  that  it  must  have  been  a  very  large  tract  of 
country  indeed  for  that  price  to  have  been  paid  for  it,  as, 
in  those  days,  waste  or  unimproved  lands  were  merely 
of  a  nominal  value  in  that  part  of  the  world ;  and  as 
the  ivhole  of  the  Campbell  lands,  with  nearly  all  Sou  Hi 
Adamantia  (which  included  the  remaining  u  open  "  Govern- 
ment lands  of  Adam  Kok  J, have  now  been  wrested  from 
the  Free  State  by  the  Colonial  Government,  it  is  clear 
that  the  greater  part  of  the  territory  legally  purchased 
by  that  State   is  in  the  hands  of  the  filibusters.      The- 


DUPLICITY    OF    BRITISH    OFFICIALS.  215 

country  thus  robbed  is  over  5,000  square  miles  in 
extent !  The  fact  that  previous  to  this  unmitigated 
robbery,  pretended  to  be  in  his  interest,  the  semi- 
barbarian  Waterboer  and  his  two  or  three  hundred 
dissolute  followers,  already  held  in  their  possession  a 
country  extending  to  over  6,000  square  miles,  has,  of 
course,  been  carefully  concealed  by  the  Colonial  Go- 
vernment and  Governors  !  Quite  as  cautiously  .  have 
they  ignored,  and  remained  purposely  oblivious  to,  the 
fact  that,  during  60  years  of  occupation,  Waterboer's 
Griquas  have  utterly  neglected  to  improve  or  utilize 
their  extensive  territory — more  than  30  square  miles  of 
ground  per  male  adidt  of  the  ivhole  population  ! 

Knowing  these  facts,  how  mean,  how  false,  how 
utterly  unjustifiable  must  any  honest  man  deem  the 
professed  motives  of  the  Colonial  Government,  and  the 
outrageous  acts  founded  thereon — the  bitterly  hostile 
treatment  to  which  they  have  subjected  their  friendly 
neighbours  of  the  Orange  Free  State  ? 

9.  Annexure  No.  23.  This  document  is  one  of  the 
most  important  produced  by  the  Free  State.  It  con- 
clusively establishes  the  facts  1st,  that  Cornelius  Kok 
did  rule  as  an  independent  chief;  2nd,  that  Adam  Kok  did 
inherit  and  succeed  to  all  his  territorial  possessions.  It 
consists  of  the  very  best  of  written  or  documentary 
evidence,  i.e.,  the  original  instrument;  attested,  more- 
over, by  all  the  witnesses  (who  are  all  living,  and 
two  of  whom  gave  their  evidence  at  Nooitgedacht) 
produced  by  the  individual  (W.  O.  Corner)  for  whom 
it  was  originally  drawn  up  ;  and  not,  indeed,  denied 
by  anyone  of  the  persons  concerned  therein.  We 
quote   it  verbatim. 


216   PROOF  OF  c.  kok's  independent  chieftainship. 

POWEE  OF  ATTOKNEY. 
"I,  the  undersigned,  Cornelius  Kok,  Griqua  Chief,  residing  at 
Campbell,  hereby  nominate  and  appoint  Mr.  William  Ogilvie 
Corner,  residing  at  Philippolis,  as  my  lawful  agent  and  attorney, 
with  the  power  to  write  in  my  name  to  the  Orange  Free  State 
Government,  respecting  certain  of  my  grounds  which  are  occupied  by 
the  burghers  of  the  Orange  Free  State,  and  which  have  never  been 
sold  or  let  by  any  of  my  burghers ;  and  I  further  give  him  the  power 
to  fix  beacons,  according  to  my  instructions,  of  any  grounds  which 
have  been  sold  by  me  or  any  of  my  burghers ;  and  I  also  give  him 
the  power  of  substitution  as  my  agent,  in  my  name,  place,  and 
stead,  to  appear  before  any  of  the  Orange  Free  State  Courts,  and 
there  as  my  act  and  deed  to  make  and  give  transfer  of  farms,  and  thus  to 
carry  out  what  may  be  required  in  respect  of  such,  with  promise  of 
approval.  And  I  further  authorize  my  agent  to  sell  any  of  my 
ground,  and  to  give  such  purchase  rights  in  my  name  to  such  pur- 
chasers, and  also  any  purchase  rights,  or  to  give  farms  out  to  any  of  my 
burghers ;  and  everything  that  he  shall  do  as  my  agent  will  be 
approved  of  by  me,  the  undersigned,    Chief  of  Campbell. 

"  Given  under  my  hand,   at  Campbell,   on  the  8th  day   of   the 
month   July,  1856. 

"Cornelius  Kok,  Captain. 
"His  +  mark. 
"  As  witnesses  : 

"  Henry  Bartlett. 
"Jan  GoEmrAN." 

The  above  document  having  been  proved  to  have 
been  acted  upon,  and  its  terms  and  due  execution 
never  having  been  protested  against,  nor,  indeed, 
objected  to,  by  Watcrboer,  either  at  the  time,  or  until 
1870 — fifteen  years  subsequently  ! — and  then  only  indi- 
rectly by  the  general  nature  of  his  claim  to  Adamantia, 
Ave  have  every  right  to  take  the  paper  (especially  the 
passages  in  italics)  as  absolute  proof  of  the  late  Cap- 
tain Cornelius  Kok's  entire  independence  as  the  sole 
and  supreme  Chief  of  Campbell. 


PROOF  OF  A.  KOK'S  SUCCESSION  TO  C.  KOIv's  TERRITORY.  217 

This  document  is  endorsed  upon  the  other  side : — 

"  I,  the  undersigned,  Adam  Kok,  lawful  successor  and  executor  of 
the  late  Cornelius  Xolc,  Chief  of  Campbell,  hereby  declare  to  nominate 
and  appoint,  by  virtue  of  the  aforewritten  Power  of  Attorney  of 
the  late  Cornelius  Kok,  Mr.  William  Ogilvie  Corner,  of  Philippolis. 

"  Adam  Kok,  Captain. 
"  Thus  done  at  Philippolis,    this,  the   14th  day   of  the   month 
June,   1859. 

* '  As  witnesses  : 

"  W.  J.  Crossley, 
"  James  Corner." 

This  undisputed  endorsement  proves  what  is  a 
notorious  matter  of  history  in  the  neighbourhood,  viz., 
the  facts  (1)  that  Cornelius  Kok  did  bequeath  all  his 
lands — the  Campbell  grounds,  and  certain  territory  on 
the  south  bank  of  the  Vaal — to  Captain  Adam  Kok ; 
(2)  that  the  latter  did  by  law,  and  in  fact,  accept  the 
same,  exercise  undivided  chieftainship  over  them,  and 
retain  undisputed  possession,  until  he  and  his  people 
sold  off  everything  they  possessed  in  land  to  the  Free 
State,  and  migrated  from  that  part  of  the  country;  (3) 
and  that  Waterboer  did  not  succeed  to,  nor  at  any  time 
possess,  any  portion  of  the  said  territory,  nor  ever 
dispute  the  right  and  title  of  Adam  Kok,  until  sub- 
sequent to  that  Chiefs  departure. 

Annexure  No.  24.  This  document  is  unimportant, 
being  an  old  power  of  attorney  granted  by  the  Chief 
Adam  Kok  to  Mr.  Harvey,  but  superseded  by  that 
of  later  date,  15th  August,  1861,  Annexure  No.  4, 
quoted  in  extenso  in  our  fifth  chapter. 

10.  Annexure  No.  25,  and  last,  is  a  document  of  the 
greatest  importance.  It  convicts  Waterboer  of  fraud 
and  falsehood  in  his  present  claim  to  the  diamond 
fields  and  the  Campbell  lands,  out  of  his   own  mouth, 


218      waterboer's  CLAIM  proved  fraudulent. 

by  his  own  words,  written  long  ago,  a  full  decade 
before  the  existence  of  the  precious  stones  ever  came 
to  be  suspected. 

It  is  a  letter  written  by  him  to  a  well-known 
resident  of  the  Free  State,  in  reply  to  the  latter  s 
previous  applications  to  him  for  a  farm  in  the  Campbell 
lands : — 

"  Vaal  Biver,  5tli  October,  1859. 

"  To  Mr.  A.  W.  Greeff,  at  Campbell. 

"  Good  Friend, — Inasmuch  as  I  have  received  two  observa- 
tions (applications  ?)  from  you,  regarding  a  farm  of  mine,  situated 
m  the  division  of  Campbell,  which  farm  you  desire  to  obtain  from  me. 
for  your  use,  according  to  your  statement,  the  undersigned  hereto 
will  be  (is  ?)  utterly  unable  to  give  you  a  satisfactory  answer, 
because  the  said  farm  does  not  belong  to  my  territory,  and  is  consequently 
ivithout  the  limits  of  my  territorial  jurisdiction  ;  thus  putting  it  out  of 
my  power  to  send  you  an  exact  (a  satisfactory  ?)  answer  to  your 
request. 

' '  Whenever  such  applications  are  made  to  me  within  the  limits 
of  my  jurisdiction,  I  should  be  prepared  to  return  an  answer  con- 
formable with  my  principles,  as  to  the  practibility  or  impractibihty. 

"  I  have  the  honour  to  be,  Sir, 

11  Your  friend, 
(Signed)         "  N.  Waterboer,  Captain. 

"A  true  translation ; 

"  William  Collins, 

"  Sworn  Translator  to  the  Colonial  Government  and 
Supreme  Court,  Cape  Colony,  of  1840." 

The  original  letter  has  been  produced  and  sworn  to 
by  Mr.  Greeff,  and  is  now  in  the  hands  of  the  Free 
State  Government.  Nothing  can  be  clearer  than  the 
manner  in  which  the  passages  we  have  put  in  italics 
deny  all  the  right  to  the  Campbell  lands ;    and  this 


CALIGEAPHIC  PERSPICIENCE.  219 

coincides  with  the  well-known  history  of  the  country. 
Of  course,  unless  Waterboer  can  disprove  the  authen- 
ticity of  this  document,  it  entirely  upsets  his  case.  So 
far  as  I  can  ascertain,  Waterboer  has  never  yet  denied 
this  letter,  although  his  special  pleaders  (the  Colonial 
Government)  say  so,  and  by  two  of  their  members, 
Mr.  Southey,  Colonial  Secretary,  and  Mr.  Griffith, 
Attorney  General,  once  undertook  to  throw  doubt  upon 
it  by  declaring  that  the  signature  on  the  original  was 
a  forgery ! 

"Being  something  like  this,  '  N.  Water-Boer,'  while  on  all 
authentic  documents  that  we  have  seen,  the  signature  is  written 
1  N.  Waterboer.'  »« 

Well,  at  Bloemfontein,  during  the  month  of  May, 
1872,  his  Honour,  President  Brand,  and  Mr.  F.  K. 
Hohne,  Government  Secretary,  had  the  courtesy  to 
produce  to  me  five  or  six  "  authentic  documents/' 
with  five  or  six  authentic  signatures  of  "  N.  Water- 
Boer,"  exactly  as  on  the  document,  Annexure  No,  25. 
Of  course,  the  onus  probandi  does  not  rest  with  the 
Orange  Free  State,  who  are  the  defendants,  although, 
with  intentional  and  unpardonable  injustice,  the 
Colonial  Government  has  forced  it  upon  them,  but 
upon  the  plaintiff,  Waterboer,  who  claims  part  of  the 
State's  territory — part,  too,  which,  as  we  have  seen, 
has  for  a  quarter  of  a  century  been  in  the  indisputable 
possession  of  the  residents  therein,  and  which  has  been 
part  and  parcel  of  the  State  from  the  day  of  its 
existence  ! 

A  comparison  of  the  documentary  evidence  pro- 
duced on  either  side  cannot  fail  to  be  in  favour  of  the 

*  Vide  p.  157,  Capetown  Blue  Book,  No  1.  1871. 


220  TREE  STATE  BIGHT  TO  ADAMANTLY. 

Free  State  ;  both  the  relative  value,  and  the  respective 
merit,  seem  too  palpable  to  require  further  comment. 
Here  ends  our  review  of  the  documentary  part  of  the 
evidence  brought  forward  by  Waterboer  and  by  the 
Government  of  the  Orange  Free  State  at  the  meeting 
at  Nooitgedacht. 

But  as  bearing  directly  upon  the  same  points,  I  have 
selected  a  few  documents  out  of  those  subsequently 
produced  by  the  Orange  Free  State  Government  during 
the  controversy  with  the  Government  of  the  Cape ; 
and  these  I  add  to  this  Chapter,  as  an  important 
Annexure. 


Anxexuee  to  Chapter  10. 

This  Annexure  contains  five  documents,  four  of 
which  are  copies  of  originals  in  the  possession  of  the 
Free  State  Government;  the  fifth  being  a  certified 
copy  of  an  original  possessed  by  Captain  Adam 
Kok. 

1.  This  is  a  list  of  twenty-two  farms  for  which  British 
land  certificates  or  title-deeds  were  granted  during  the 
time  of  the  Sovereignty.  And  although  for  a  period 
of  from  tiventy-tivo  to  twenty -four  years  these  farms  have 
been  and  still  are  held  and  occupied  by  virtue  of  the 
said  titles  (having  moreover,  in  most  cases,  been  pur- 
chased by  the  owners  some  years  before  the  issue  of 
the  British  land  certificates),  yet  all  are  now  cut  off 
from  the  Orange  Free  State  by  the  false  line  claimed 
for  Waterboer,  and  forcibly  taken  possession  of  by  the 
Colonial  Government ! 


BRITISH  TITLE-DEEDS  IN  ADAMANT! A. 


221 


Name  of  Farm. 


Owner. 


David's  Graf,  or  Klip  Drift , 

Kookfontein  (No.  135,  24th  July,  1850.) 

Knoffelokfontein   

Mayerskuilen 

De  Zoutpan   

Klipfontein     

Swinkspan 

Zoetfonteia    


PietvanderWesthuisen 
Christof.  J.  Jacobs. 
J.  J.  Boshof. 
Christofi'el  Jacobs. 
H.  Groenewald. 
James  Jones. 
Willem  Jacobs. 
Salomon  Vermaak. 


I  can  only  find  the  number  and  date  of  the  British 
land  certificate  of  one  of  the  above  farms  ;  but  they 
are  quoted  and  attested  by  Messrs.  J.  J.  Boshoff, 
Member  of  the  Volksraad,  J.  J.  Kabie,  and  F. 
Rossouvv,  Members  of  a  Free  State  Land-Commission 
in  1854.* 


i 

No  OF 
Farm. 

Name  oy  Farm. 

Name  of  Owner. 

Date  of 
British  Land 

Certificate. 

Modder  River, 

9 

No.  46 

Platfontein 

Johannes  F.  Otto 

Dec.  16,  1848. 

10 

„     50 

Mauritzfontein 

John  C.  Coetzee 

>> 

11 

„     52 

Alexandersfontein 

Johannes  C.  Coetzee 

?> 

12 

„      57 

Yoetpacl  Drift 

Robert  Preforms 

•n 

13 

,,      58 

De  Dooms 

Willem  Lucldik 

?» 

14 

,,      66 

Spytfontein 

C.  J.  Jacobs 

Dec.  19,1848. 

15 

„      69 

Salpeter  Pan 

Johannes  Combriuck 

?> 

16 

ii   255 

Klip  Drift 

JacobusAdrianSmith 

Bloemfontein, 
April  24,  1849. 

17 

„    338 

Knoffelfontein 

Pieter  S.  Jacobs 

Kalkfontein, 
July  17,  1850. 

18 

„    339 

VanAswegen's  Hoek 

?? 

?>     ii         u 

The  above  list  is  copied  from  the  official  extract 
from  the  books  of  the  British  Sovereignty  Land 
Register,  made  over  to  the  Government  of  the  Orange 

*  Vide  p.  117,  Blue  Book/'  Correspondence  respecting  the  Cape  of 
Good  Hope." — London,  August  17,  1871. 


222        S3  BRITISH  CERTIFICATE  FARMS  FILIBUSTERED. 


Free  State  in  18"34?  and  was  produced  to  Sir  H. 
Barkly,  at  Cape  Town,  by  President  Brand,  on  the 
5th  January,  1871.* 


Date  of 

No.  OF 

Name  of  Fahm. 

Name  of  Ownbb, 

British  Land 

F 

Certificate. 

10 

Xo.  167 

Waterval. 

C.  J.  Jacobs. 

24th  July,  18o0. 

20 

„       43 

TVcerivioren. 

A.  P. van  derWaltand 
Johs.  Kabic. 

27th  June,  18-30. 

121 

6 

Klipclrift. 

Ilk.  Ch.  Prctorius. 

19th  Dec,  184S. 

..., 

„•     53 

Brakfontein. 

J.  F.  Otto. 

16th   „         ., 

This  list  is  also  copied  from  an  official  extract  from 
the  books  of  the  British  Sovereignty  Land  Register 
made  over  to  the  Government  of  the  Orange  Free 
State ;  it  was  produced  to  Sir  H.  Barkly  by  Pre- 
sident Brand,  at  Cape  Town,  on  the  14th  of  January, 
1871. t 

In  addition  to  the  above  twenty-two  farms,  making 
(with  the  eight  quoted  in  Annexare  No.  7,  Chapter  X.) 
thirty  in  all,  there  are  three  others  of  which  I  have  not 
any  particulars,  increasing  to  thirty-three  the  total 
number  of  farms  with  British  land  certificates,  now 
wrested  from  the  Free  State.  With  respect  to  these, 
President  Brand,  in  a  despatch  to  Sir  H.  Barkly,  dated 
"  Bloemfontein,  7th  February,  1872,"  after  part  of  the 
Free  State  had  been  annexed  to  the  Cape  Colony  by 
Sir  H.  Barkly' s  unauthorized  proclamation  of  the  27th 
of  October,  1871,  states: 

"  The    Government  of  the   Orange  Free  State  %  cannot 

*  Vide  p.  113,  Blue  Book,  "  Correspondence  respecting  the  affairs  of 
the  Cape  of  Good  Hope."— London,  August  17,  1871. 

f  Vide  p.  122.— Ibid. 

X  Vide  p.  79,  O.F.S.  Blue  Book,  "  Correspondence  between  the  Pre- 
sident of  the  Orange  Free  State  and  the  Governor  of  the  Cape  Colony." 
— Bloemfontein,  1872. 


THE  FREE  STATE  ROBBED  OF  5,000  SQUARE  MILES.   223 

understand  upon  tohat  principle  of  right  and  justice  her 
Majesty's   Government  can,  seventeen  years  after  the 

ABANDONMENT  OF    THE    SOVEREIGNTY,    question    or  clisaVOlV 

the  act  of  their  officer,  Major  Warden,  and  of  his  Excel- 
lency Her  Majesty's  High  Commissioner,  Sir  Harry  Smith, 
as  against  the  Free  State  Government,  who  have,  by  Article 
4,  of  the  Convention  (of  1854),  guaranteed  the  possession 
of  the  lands  then  in  occupation  of  the  white  in- 
habitants, and  the  title  granted  by  the  British  land 
certificates;  of  these  thirty-three  are  situated  in  the 
territory  lately  proclaimed  by  your  Excellency,  thirty 
of  which  were  issued  between  1848-1850,  and  three 
in  the  year  1852." 

Well,  indeed,  may  President  Brand  ask  upon  u  what 
principle  of  right  and  justice  "  so  gigantic  a  fraud  can 
be  perpetrated  as  that  by  which  his  country  has  been 
robbed  of  143  farms  (33  being  guaranteed  originally 
by  the  British  Government  itself),  and,  altogether,  not 
less  than  5,000  square  miles  of  territory  !  I  venture 
to  affirm  that  no  honest  man  acquainted  with  the  case 
would  answer  otherwise  than  that  the  only  principle 
concerned  is  that  of  might ;  and,  investigating  the 
matter  a  posteriori,  that  it  was  solely  in  order  to  obtain 
the  diamond  fields  that  such  might  has  been  so  arro- 
gantly, cowardly,  outrageously  exercised. 

2.  The  following  are  translations  from  some  original 
documents,  being  reports  and  results  of  the  Free  State 
Commission  sent  out  in  May,  1854,  by  the  Govern- 
ment, as  soon  as  possible  after  its  creation  by  the 
abandonment  of  the  Sovereignty,  in  order  to  ascer- 
tain from  the  Griqua  Captains,  Waterboer  and  Corne- 
lius Kok,  a  definition  of  their  respective  boundaries, 


224     P1JO0F  THAT  ADAMAXTLV    WAS   XKVEli  WATEBBOEH's. 

for  the  purpose  of  avoiding   any  frontier  troubles  or 
disputes  in  the  future.* 

"  AVe,  the  undersigned,  Captain  and  Councillors  of  Campbell, 
declare  by  these  presents,  that  the  boundary  linos  between  us, 
Waterboer  and  Jan  Bloem,  are  as  follows  : 


This  line  is  nearly 
identical  with  that 
known  as  the  Vetberg 
line,  by  which,  in  the 


11  To  the  south  of  the  Red  Ridge  (Rooderand)  at 
Rieter  Abraham's  Tabak's  farm,  ivith  a  straight 
line  over  the  Spits  Kopje  at  the  Red  Ran,  further 
on  the  leftside  of  the  Vetberg,  and  with  a  straight 


following  year,  it  was  \  line  over  Uithaaldersfontein  to  the  cross  line  of 


finally  and  amicably 
superseded,  with  the 
consent  of  all  the 
States,  Rowers,  or  Go- 
vernments concerned. 


i  Captain  Adam  Kok  "  (from  Rainah  to  David's 
Graf),  "  (a  J  and  with  the  same  line  northwards  to 
David's  Graf,  on  the  Riet  River,  and  from  there 
with  the  course  of  the  river  to  the  two  rivers, 
and  with  the  waggonroad  out  on  the  opposite 
side  to  Spytfontein,  thence  with  a  straight  line 
on  to  the  first  turn,  to  the  lower  side  of  the  school "  (Mission)  "farm  on 
the  Vaal  River"  fPlatberg) ;  "in  which  grounds  the  burghers  of  the 
new  Government  shall  have  the  right  to  buy  grounds  from  Captain 
Cornelius  Kok  or  his  subjects,  excepting  along  the  Yaal  River,  as 
far  as  the  stock  can  graze  from  the  river. 
"  Campbell,  24th  May,  1854. 

"  As  witnesses       (Signed)  -f  Cornelius  Kok,  Captaiu. 

J.  J.  Rabie.  J.  Stegleng. 

J.  J.  Boshoff.  +  Jacobus  Dewege,  Councillor. 

P.  P.  Rossouw,  G.  F.  +  Johannes  Dewege,        ,, 

+  Cornelius  Kok,  ,, 

(a)  From  tins  point  in  tlio  description  of  boundary, 
the  line  (excepting  a  considerable  deflection  to  the 
west,  to  allow  for  farms  which  had  been  purchased, 
and  were  then  occupied  by  Free  State  subjects),  runs 
as  the  line  now  claimed  for  Waterboer  from  David's 
Graf  to  Platberg.  Altogether  the  document  and  the 
reports  of  the  commission  arc  highly  important ;  they 

*  Vide  p.  117,  Blue  Book,   "  Correspondence  respecting  the;  affairs  of 
the  Cape  of  Good  Hope" — London,  August  17,  1871. 


REPORT   OF  LAND   COMMISSION   IN   1854.  225 

prove,  1st,  that  Cornelius  Kok  was  an  independent 
Chief ;  2nd,  that  Waterboer  did  not  then  dispute  the 
fact;  3rd,  that  Waterboer  did  not  then  claim  any  land 
where  now  he  does,  beyond  or  to  the  east  of  the  Vet- 
berg  line ;  4th,  that  the  Free  State  took  every  precau- 
tion to  avoid  encroaching  upon  native  territory  ;  oth, 
that  the  Free  State  acquired  from  the  lawful  owners 
the  right  to  purchase  the  lands  now  claimed  for  Water- 
boer ;  6th,  that  Waterboer  was  a  consenting  party  to 
the  making  of  the  Vetberg  line  between  himself  and 
Cornelius  Kok,  by  Captain  Adam  Kok. 

The  following  extract  is  taken  from  the  "  Report  of 
the  Commission :" 

"I  told  them  "  (Cornelius  Kok  and  his  Councillors)  "  that  we  were 
deputed  by  the  new  government  to  ascertain  whether  any  dispute  ex- 
isted, in  respect  to  ground,  between  him  and  Waterboer.  .  .  He  said 
that  he  had  written  to  Captain  Adam  Kok  to  make  the  line  between  them. 

"  Waterboer  asked  what  was  the  intention  of  the  new  govern- 
ment in  respect  to  this.  I  answered  that  it  was  a  precaution  to 
know  if  it  were  desirable  to  allow  our  burghers  to  purchase  grounds. 
.  .  .  He  said,  '  I  am  pleased  to  hear  of  the  good  intentions  of  the 
new  government.'  Thereupon  I  caused  the  document  (quoted  above) 
received  from  Cornelius  Kok  to  be  read,  in  order  to  ascertain 
whether  there  was  any  dispute  respecting  the  line  as  stated  by 
Kok.  Waterboer  said  this  day  was  the  first  occasion  that  he  heard 
of  that  line.  One  of  his  Councillors  named  Jacob  Kruger,  said  that 
their  grounds  ran  (a)  from  Ramah  in  a  straight  line  to  David'' 8  Graf, 
and  with  the  Riet  River  stream  to  its  junction  with  the  Orange  River. 
Waterboer  said  that  he  could  not  just  now  speak  about  that  line,  as 
he  had  no  knowledge  of  it ;  we  should  bear  a  little  patience  ;  he 
had  requested  Adam  Kok  to  decide  the  line  between  them  ;  then  he  would 
see  whether  there  were  any  disputes  between  them." 

(a)  This  definition  is  almost  as  much  to  the  east,  as 
?  the  line  claimed  by  Cornelius  Kok  was  to  the  west  of 
the  line  eventually  decided  upon,  as  the  Vetberg  line, 
between  them,  by  Adam  Kok. 

Q 


220  mij.  southey's  misrepresentation. 

In  a  sworn  deposition,  dated  "  December  1st,  1870,"" 
Mr.  J.  J.  Rabie  made  the  following  statement  respect- 
ing the  same  incident  of  the  Commission  of  1854  : 

"He"  (Waterboer)  "then  said  that  his  line  was  half-way 
between  Griqua  Town  and  Campbell;  from  there  to  where  the 
point  (or  edge)  of  Campbell's  mountain  reached  the  Vaal  Kiver, 
thence  up  the  Vaal  River  to  the  junction  of  the  Modder  and  Vaal 
Rivers,  thence  along  the  side  of  a  certain  Bedpan  over  the  Yetberg, 
over  the  Pan  of  Kubab,  over  the  Pan  of  Klipfontein,  to  a  place 
called  Stuurman's  Vlei,  and  thence  to  the  line  from  Eamah  to  David's 
Graf ;  but  he  added  to  this  definition,  '  I  am  not  quite  positive 
about  these  lines, — reasons  why  I  requested  Adam  Kok  to  act  as 
arbitrator  and  decide  this  dispute.'  " 

Taking  advantage  of  the  necessarily  different  word- 
ing between  the  original  "  Report,"  and  Mr.  Kabie's 
deposition  made  from  memory  sixteen  years  after  the 
event,  Mr.  Southey  and  his  colleague,  the  Attorney- 
General  of  Cape  Town,  in  considering  both  documents, 
in  a  report  thereon  to  Sir  H.  Barkly,  dated  January 
19,  1871,  state  : 

*  "  In  his  declaration  of  December,  1870,  he  gives  a  very 
different  version  of  what  took  place  at  Griqua  Town  from  that 
afforded  by  his  Eeport  of  1854  ;  seeing  that,  while  in  the  Eeport  he 
states  that  Waterboer  denied  all  knowledge  of  the  line  described 
by  C.  Kok,  or  of  any  line  whatever  between  them,  in  the  declaration 
he  says  that  "Waterboer  gave  a  particular  description  of  the  line." 

This,  I  submit,  is  a  total  misrepresentation.  The 
least  perspicuous  and  impartial  of  critics  might  have 
seen  that  the  line  denied  bv  Waterboer  in  the 
"Report,"  was  "  that  line"  as  claimed  and  defined  by 
Cornelius  Kok ;  not  the  line  Mr.  Rabie  says  in  his 
"  deposition  "  was  claimed  by  Waterboer.     That  the 

*  Vide  p.  120,  Blue  Book.  "  Correspondence  respecting  the  affairs 
of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope," — London,  August  17, 1871. 


TERGIVERSATION    OF    MK.    SOUTHEY  AND   COLLEAGUE.   22'? 

latter  "  denied  all  knowledge  of  any  line  whatever  between 
them  "  is  simply  false.  By  the  words  of  the  "  Report," 
— "  he  had  requested  Adam  Kok  to  decide  the  line 
betiveen  them  /" — positively  admitting  the  existence  of  a 
line  between  them,  about  which  they  differed,  and  to 
decide  which  Adam  Kok  was  called  upon  as  arbitrator ; 
the  result  being  the  making  of  the  Vetberg  line.  It  seems 
almost  incredible  that  such  high  officials  as  the  Colonial 
Secretary  and  Attorney-General  can  either  make  such 
egregious  errors,  or  such  gross  misrepresentations. 

If  word  for  word  Mr.  Rabie's  "  Declaration "  had 
agreed  with  his  "  Report'1  made  sixteen  years  before, 
then,  indeed,  it  would  have  had  a  strange  appearance. 
Referring  to  his  Commission  in  1854,  he  concludes 
with  the  following  just  and  particularly  pertinent 
remarks  : — 

"  In  that  time  there  was  no  question  whether  or  not  Cornelius 
Kok  was  Captain  of  Campbell.  Captain  Waterboer  never  dis- 
puted it. 

"  If  there  ever  was  an  opportunity  for  Waterboer  to  have  disputed 
the  authority  of  Cornelius  Kok  over  Campbell  it  was  the  present,  of 
which  he  did  not  avail  himself." 

*  3.  "  [Translation  from  the  original.'] 

"  Campbell,  August  22,  1845. 
"Sir, — In  consequence  of  having  agreed  with  my  Council  to 
remind  you  again  that  my  territory  stretches  from  the  Orange  River 
to  Blesberg,  and  thence  to  Riet  River,  named  Blaauwbank,  and  from 
there  further  to  Van  Wyk's  Valley,  and  further  (to)  Platberg,  on  the 
Vaal  River  ;  so  it  is  my  friendly  request  to  prevent  any  disturb  - 
ance.  "  I  have,  &c, 

(Signed)  "  Cornelius  Kok,  Captain  of  Campbell.5' 

Eawstorne,  Esq.,  Philippolis. 

*  Vide  p.  120,  Blue  Book,  "  Correspondence  respecting  the  affairs 
of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope." — London,  August  17,  1871. 

Q  2 


228  EVIDENCE    FOE    THE   FREE   STATE. 

Mr.  Rawstorne  was  then  British  Civil  Commissioner 
of  Colesberg.  The  boundary  here  described  is  almost 
precisely  similar  to  that  defined  by  the  document 
quoted  in  Mr.  Rabie's  "  Report"  in  1854. 

4.  *  "  [Translation  from  the  original.'] 

''Esteemed  Mr.  Jacobs, 

"  Sir, — I  have  the  pleasure  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your 
letter  which  came  to  my  hand  concerning  your  wish  to  know  the 
limit  and  division  of  the  districts  "between  us,  the  one  and  the  other 
Chiefs  of  the  districts  ; — (it)  was  already  known  in  the  early  days  that 
Griquastad  was  made  the  first  settlement,  that  where  Yaal  Eiver 
and  Eiet  Eiver  flow  together  on  the  south  side  of  Eiet  Eiver 
between  Zwaart  (Orange)  Eiver  belonged  to  Griquastad,  from  there 
oast  up  reaching  to  the  Keil,  from  there  across,  beginning  from 
the  north  side  a  direct  line  south-eastwards  along  from  Eamah  to 
Zwaart  (Orange)  Eiver,  reaching  along  the  west  side  of  Bleskop 
(or  Blesberg).  Yours,  &c, 

(Signed)  "  A.  Wateeboer,  Captain." 

"  To  Mr.  Jacobs,  living  at  Eiet  Eiver. 
Griquastad,  10th  February,  1846. 

"  A  correct  translation  of  the  original  in  my  office, 

"  F.  K.  Hoiine,  Government  Secretary." 

The  coincidence  between  these  two  letters,  and, 
indeed,  the  plain  way  in  which  all  the  documents  pro- 
duced as  evidence  by  the  Free  State  corroborate  one 
another,  furnish  satisfactory  proof  of  the  merit  of  the 
case.  The  letters  of  both  Chiefs  agree  very  closely  as 
to  the  line  between  them.  In  fact,  the  mean  of  the  two 
tuill  be  found  to  be  the  Vctb erg  line,  AYaterboers  letter 
describes  his  eastern  boundary,  that  of  Albania,  and 
agrees  with  what  Mr.  Rabie  in  his  'Deposition'  de- 
clares that  Chief  explained   to   him :  Cornelius  Kok's 


*   Vide  p.  18,  Blue  Book,  "  Further  Correspondence,  respecting  the 
affairs  of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope." — London,  February  6th,  1872. 


sir  h.  baekly's  partizanship.  229 

reply  to  Mr.  Rawstorne  defines  liis  western  boundary, 
and  coincides  with  both  Waterboer' s  account  and  the 
Vetberg  line. 

Acting  upon  their  predetermined  system,  the  lumi- 
naries of  the  Cape  Government  at  once  proceeded  to 
deny  and  ignore  the  authenticity  and  existence  of 
these  two  important  political  and  historical  documents. 
Upon  what  authority  ?  As  usual,  Waterboer' s  ipse 
dixit ! 

In  a  despatch  dated  "  Cape  Town,  October  23, 
1871,"  Sir  H.  Barkly  thus  disposes  of  the  letter  last 
quoted,  quite  to  his  own  satisfaction  : 

*  "  I  am  now  in  a  position  to  state  that  its  authenticity  is  chal- 
lenged by  Captain  Nicolas  Waterboer,  on  grounds  which  have 
satisfied  himself  and  Eaad  that  it  must  be  a  fabrication.  At  any  rate, 
that  letter  was  neither  produced  nor  cited  by  your  Honour  and  Mr. 
Hutton  when  in  Cape  Town  ;  an  omission  all  the  more  remarkable, 
if  its  purport  be,  as  now  asserted,  so  intelligible  and  explicit,  and 
its  authenticity  so  unquestionable.  " 

Sir  H.  Barkly' s  blind  parti zanship  carried  him  too 
far  here.  Seeking  to  throw  discredit  upon  the  veracity 
and  honour  of  the  Free  State  Government,  he  laid 
himself  open  to  the  following  crushing  rejoinder, — Pre- 
sident Brand's  reply,  dated  "  Bloemfontein,  6th 
November,  1871:"— 

f  "  With  reference  to  the  allegations  of  Captain  N.  Waterboer, 
that  the  autograph  letter  of  his  father,  Captain  A.  Waterboer,  to 
Mr.  Jacobs  .  .  .  is  a  spurious  document,  the  Government  of  the 
Orange  Free  State  have  the  honour  to  observe,  that  the  hand- 
writing and  signature  of  another  letter  of  Captain  A.  Waterboer,  in 
the  Government  office,  entirely  corresponds  with  this  one;  and  that 

*  Vide  p.  29,  Blue  Book,  "  Further  Correspondence  respecting  the 
affah'3  of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope." — London,  February  6, 1872. 

t  Vide  p.  56. — Ibid. 


230  SIR  h.  babkly's  duplicity  exposed. 

the  following  is  written  on  a  piece  of  paper  attached  to  this  letter 
and  the  letter  of  Captain  C.  Kok  — 

*  Letter  from  Captain  Waterboer 

to 

Mr.  Jacobs, 

dated  1 0th  February,  1846.' 

'  Letter  from  Captain  C.  Kok 

to 

F.  Eawstorne,  Esq., 

dated  22nd  August,  1845.' 

'  Both  the  above  letters  define  the  boundaries 
of  these  Chiefs.' 

ly  the  late  Mr.  J.  Allison,  Clerk  to  the  British  Resident,  Major  Warden, 
and  Registrar  of  Deeds  during  the  time  of  the  Sovereignty. 

It  does  not  appear  why,  by  whom,  with  what  object,  and  for 
what  purpose,  a  fabrication,  as  alleged  by  Captain  N.  Waterboer, 
of  a  document  found  amongst  the  papers  left  ly  the  British  Government, 
upon  the  abandonment  of  the  Sovereignty,  should  have  been 
made." 

Instead  of  the  Government  of  the  Free  State  being 
responsible  for  these  two  documents,  as  expressly  im- 
plied by  Sir  H.  Barkly,  it  seems  that  they  were 
received,  docketed,  and  handed  over  as  State  papers 
by  the  British  Government  itself!  This  attempt  to 
shake  their  value  and  authenticity,  is  only  upon  a  par 
with  all  Sir  H.  Barkly's  quips  and  quibbles  and  worse 
misrepresentations. 

5.  The  following  document,  if  genuine,  full}'  esta- 
blishes the  fact,  that  Captain  Cornelius  Kok  was  the 
sole  and  independent  Chief  of  Campbell.  It  is  en- 
dorsed and  guaranteed  by  the  Government  of  the 
Orange  Free  State ;  and  many  of  those  who,  in  the 
joerson  of  Mr.  M.  A.  Oberholster,  were  the  second 
party  to  the  agreement,  are  still  living  witnesses  of  its 
authenticty — to  shake  which,   moreover,  no  evidence 


TREATY  BETWEEN  KOK  AND  THE  BOERS.     231 

lias  ever  yet  (January,  1873)  been  adduced  by  the 
other  side.  It  also  proves  the  right  of  Cornelius  Kok 
to  the  land  south  of  the  Vaal,  which  he  and  his  people 
originally  sold  to  subjects  of  the  Free  State,  between 
that  river  and  the  line  now  seized  and  claimed  as 
Waterboer's  from  David's  Graf  to  Platberg. 

*  "  On  this  8th  day  of  August,  1840,  we,  the  undersigned,  Chief 
'Cornelius  Kok,  Captain,  and  Jan  Bloem,  Captain,  acknowledge  and 
declare  by  virtue  of  treaty  in  the  name  of  our  whole  tribes  in  one 
bond  of  friendship  to  have  agreed — 

"  1st.  We,  the  undersigned,  Chiefs  in  Council,  accept  of  the  immi- 
grated colonists  now  amongst  us  on  these  grounds  as  our  friends 
and  allies,  and  will  henceforth  show  them  every  respect  and 
friendship. 

"  2nd.  We  declare  it  is  with  our  consent  that  (a)  the  line  from 
Rama,  ivith  a  straight  line  to  the  junction  of  the  Modder  and  Riet  Rivers, 
and  thence  on  Platberg,  on  the  Vaal  River  ;  up  along  the  Yaal  River 
to  the  Tiekwas  River,  has  been  fixed,  which  line  between  our 
northern  tribes  shall  be  the  boundary  line  for  the  colonists  herein 
alluded  to,  during  the  time  they  shall  reside  on  those  grounds. 

"  3rd.  We  will  acknowledge  Mr.  M.  A.  Oberholster  as  Chief  and 
ruler  over  these  immigrated  colonists,  and  will  ourselves  show  every 
respect  to  his  field-cornets,  joint  rulers. 

' '  4th.  We  will  never,  with  our  knowledge  of  the  matter,  allow 
that  anything  in  opposition  to  the  rights  of  man  shall  be  committed 
against  any  household  or  single  individual  amongst  the  colonists  ; 
but  on  the  contrary,  whenever  it  shall  be  brought  to  our  knowledge 
that  any  colonists  have  received  injury  to  their  persons  or  property, 
we  will  never  fail  to  search  out  and  even  to  aid  in  the  punishment 
•of  the  offenders. 

' '  5th.  We  shall,  unless  the  utmost  necessity  demands  it,  never  go 
to  war  with  our  joint  tribes,  but  will,  on  the  contrary,  use  our 
aitmost  endeavours  to  live  in  peace  and  unity  with  our  co-allies. 

"6th.  If  it  should  happen  that  any  difference  or  dispute  arise 
between  us  and  our  co-Griquas,  we  shall  always  endeavour  to  settle 

1  Vide  p.  120,  Blue  Book,  "  Correspondence  respecting  the  affairs  of 
the  Cape  of  Good  Hope."— London,  Aug,  17,  1871. 


232     THE  LINE  CLAIMED  FOR  WATERBOER  DISPOSED   OF. 

the  cases  amicably;  should  we  fail  in  adjusting  the  difference 
between  us,  we  shall  call  in  Mr.  M.  A.  Oberholster  and  his  coun- 
cillors, as  our  allies,  to  aid  in  settling  the  difference. 

"  7th.  As  appears  by  treaty  of  the  16th  June,  1840,  agreed  on 
between  the  colonists  and  the  Griquas  ofPhilippolis,  and  as  we  have 
this  day  entered  into  a  treaty  of  friendship  with  the  colonists,  we- 
.view  and  acknowledge  the  Griquas  of  Philippolis  and  those  of  Eoe- 
landt,  also  as  our  friends  and  co-allies. 
11  With  our  signatures  we  authorize, 

"Cornelius  Kok,  Captain. 
Jan  Bloem,  Captain. 
"  Council — Gert  Bekus. 

,,  WlLLEM  KOK. 

,,         Gert  Kok. 
,,         Johannes  de  "Wee. 
"  Thus  done  on  the  8th  August,  1840." 

"  A  true  translation  of  a  copy  in  possession 
of  the  Chief  Adam  Kok. 

"F.  Bex,  Sworn  Translator." 

faj  Here  we  see  that  the  line  now  seized  for  Water- 
boer  was,  in  1840,  the  boundary  between  Cornelius- 
Kok  and  those  who  in  1854  beeame  the  burghers  of  the 
Free  State.  That  line,  moreover,  ceased  to  exist  at 
least  thirty  years  ago  ;  consequent  upon  the  fact  that 
from  1840  farms  on  and  beyond  it  were  continually 
bcinp;  sold  bv  Cornelius  Kok  to  the  white  settlers, 
whose  frontier  advanced  with  their  acquisitions. 


A   BENIGN    POLICY.  233 


CHAPTER  XL 

The  Government  of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope  takes- 
part  with  Waterboer,  endorses  His  Claims,  and 
Supports  His  Case  against  the  Orange  Free 
State. 

Results  of  the  Meeting  at  Nooitgedacht. — President  Brand's 
Despatch:  It  elicits  the  fact  that  Waterboer  ytas  already" 
in  Secret  Correspondence  with  the  Colonial  Government, 
and  had  offered  it  jurisdiction  over  the  dlamond  flelds. 
— Documentary  Proof  that  the  Colonial  Government  had 
no  Eight  to  Interfere. — General  Hay's  Despatches  to  the 
Free  State,  in  support  of  Waterboer,  Analyzed  ;  their 
Misstatements  and  Misrepresentations  Exposed. — General. 
Hay's  Appointment  of  a  British  Magistracy  over  Free 
State  Territory  (the  Diamond  Fields)  Equivalent  to  a 
Declaration  of  War. — The  Eight  Hon.  H.  Labouchere's 
Interpretation  of  our  Duties  to  the  Free  State. 

In  Chapter  VI.  I  pointed  out  the  inordinate  anxiety 
displayed  and  acted  up  to  by  the.  Government  of  the 
Orange  Free  State,  in  its  differences  with  Waterboer, 
to  treat  that  very  petty  chief,  but  very  disagreeable 
neighbour,  with  justice  and  consideration  ;  giving,  as 
the  last  practical  illustration  of  so  forbearing  and  weak 
a  policy,  the  "  meeting  at  Nooitgedacht." 

Having  subsequently  fully  investigated  and  ana- 
lyzed the  whole  of  the  evidence  produced  on  either 
side,  in  Chapters  VII.  to  X.  inclusive,  my  readers  will 
be  able  to  judge  as  to  the  justice  of  the  policy  pursued 


2'S4         DUPLICITY  OF    THE  LATE  CAPE  GOVERNMENT. 

by  the  Free  State  Government  after  the  meeting", — 
which,  as  I  have  already  described  in  Chapter  VI, 
failed  to  effect  any  settlement  by  reason  of  Watcr- 
boer's  own  conduct,  and  abrupt,  unmannerly  de- 
parture. 

President  Brand  thus  states  the  conclusion  to  which 
he  came  with  his  Executive  Council : 

*  ' '  After  the  Chief  Waterboer  and  his  Councillors  had  abruptly 
departed,  we  proceeded  to  consider  the  evidence  and  documents 
produced  on  both  sides  .  .  .  and  we  came  to  the  conclusion  that 
the  Chief  Waterboer  had  failed  to  show  any  title  to  the  lands 
claimed  by  him,  and  that  nothing  had  been  adduced  to  invalidate 
the  rights  of  the  Orange  Free  State  Government." 

As  it  had  been  previously  agreed  by  both  sides  that 
only  the  question  of  right  to  the  Campbell  lands  should 
be  brought  forward  at  the  meeting  at  Nooitgedacht, 
and  as  Waterboer  strove  to  support  his  claim  to  a  line 
from  Ramah  via  David's  Graf  to  Platberg  (although  not 
one  title  of  proof  did  he  produce  of  right  either  to  that 
or  the  lands  properly  in  question),  President  Brand 
had  no  other  course. 

The  Colonial  Government,  in  trying  to  find  pre- 
tences for  seizing  the  diamond-fields,  denounces  this 
as  a  decision  by  the-  Free  State  in  its  own  favour, 
totally  ignoring,  of  course,  the  following  facts : 

1.  That  this  was  not  an  ordinary  case  of  disputed 
right,  for  that  the  defendants  were  the  Government  of 
a  State  which  had  been  in  indisputable  possession  of 
part  of  the  ground  in  question  for  nineteen  years — the 

*  Vide  p.  18,  Capetown  Blue  Book,  (No.  1),  1871,  Despatch,  "  President 
Brand  to  Lieut. -Gen.  Hay,"  dated  "  Blocmfontein,  24th  September, 
1870." 


RESULT    OF   THE   NOOITGEDACHT   MEETING.  235 

whole  period  of  the  State's  existence  !  And  that  many 
other  parts  of  the  territory  cut  off  by  the  line  claimed 
by  Waterbocr,  had  been  for  a  quarter  of  a  century  in 
the  possession  of  those  settlers  who  became  its  people. 

2.  That  other  portions  of  this  territory  (thirty- 
three  extensive  sheep  or  cattle  farms,  in  fact)  had  been 
given  and  made  over  to  the  Free  State,  which  was 
compelled  to  guarantee  the  owners  of  those  farms  their 
future  rights  and  possession,  by  the  British  Govern- 
ment itself. 

3.  That  all  the  remaining  portions  of  the  disputed 
territory  had  been  purchased  from  Adam  Kok,  the 
rightful  Chief  and  owner,  for  a  nominal  sum  of  £4000, 
which,  however,  was  greatly  increased. 

Under  these  circumstances  was  not  the  President 
and  Ministry  justified — was  it  not,  indeed,  palpably 
their  duty,  their  only  course — to  retain  their  ancient 
possessions,  and  to  maintain  their  right  to  what  they 
had  undeniably  purchased  ?  Why,  it  is  plain  that 
they  would  have  been  traitors  to  their  country  had 
they  acted  otherwise ! 

kSo  far  as  the  Free  State  was  concerned  the  meeting 
at  Nooitgedacht  resulted  in  a  Proclamation  by  the 
Government,  dated  "  29th  August,  1870,"  which,  after 
pointing  out  the  fact  that  Waterboer  had 

"  No  right  whatever  to  the  grounds  of  the  late  Captain  Cornelius 
Kok  .  .  .  which  grounds  were  sold  to  the  Government  of  the 
Orange  Free  State  ...  as  has  on  several  occasions  already  been 
proclaimed. " 

and  after  denning  the  boundaries  of  the  Campbell- 
grounds,  concludes : 

"Therefore  I  hereby  proclaim  that  the  grounds,  as  above 
described,    are  the   property  of  the  Orange  Free  State  .  .  .     the 


236  THE  REAL  CAUSE  FOE  [INTERFERENCE. 

lines,  as  above  described,  will,  by  a  Commission  to  be  nominated 
by  me,  be  beaconed  off  on  Thursday,  22nd  September,  1870,  begin- 
ning at  the  junction  of  the  Harts  and  Vaal  Rivers.   .  .   . 

"  (Signed)  J.  H.  Bhand,  State  President. 

"  By  order,         ~F.  K.  Hohne, 

"  Government  Secretary." 

This  proclamation  elicited  the  fact  that  Waterbocr 
had  for  >some  time  been  in  secret  communication  with 
the  Colonial  Government,  and  that,  in  order  to  induce 
the  officials  thereof  to  support  him,  he  had  offered  (or 
been  induced  to  offer  ?)  to  place  himself  and  people  under 
British  Sovereignty,  had  offered  to  them  the  rule  and 
disposal  of  the  diamond-fields,  another  nation's  bond- 
fide  property  ! 

No  wonder  the  crafty  Mulatto  took  care  to  break  up 
the  meeting  at  Nooitgedacht  without  settling  anything! 

The  bait  took.  Such  a  chance  to  secure  the 
diamond-fields — then  thought  of  with  the  greatest 
exaggeration,  at  a  time  when  stones  never  worth  more 
than  £100  were  soiling  for  over  £2,000 — was  not  to  be 
neglected ;  AVatcrboer's  ex  parte  statements  were  in- 
stantly taken  up  and  maintained  by  the  Colonial 
Government,  and  I  publish  the  accusation  in  the  most 
positive  and  unhesitating  manner. 

The  first  step  taken  by  the  Colonial  Government 
was  deliberately  hostile  to  the  Orange  Free  State. 

In  the  first  place  they  had  no  right  whatsoever  to 
interfere  with  the  diamond-fields,  or  any  territorial  or 
other  question  between  natives  and  that  state. 

E.  cj.  Art.  II.  of  the  Convention  of  1854  between  the 
two  Governments  expressly  declares: 

"  The  British  Government  has  no  alliance  whatever  with  any  native 
Chiefs  or  Tribes  to  the  northward  of  the  Orange  Eiver,  with  the 


CRIMINAL    POLICY    OF    THE    CAPE    RULERS.  237 

exception  of  the   Griqua     Chief,  Captain  Adam  Kok;  *  and    Her 
Majesty's  Government  has  no  wish  or  intention  to  enter  hereafter  into  any 
Treaties  which    may  he   injurious  or  prejudicial  to    the  interests  of  tits 
Orange  River  Government.'''' 

That  the  support  of  Waterboer's  fraudulent  claim 
to  a  large  tract  of  the  Orange  Free  State  was  botli 
"  injurious  "  and  "  prejudicial  "  to  the  interests  of  that 
State,  needs  no  argument ;  but  in  what  terms  should 
be  condemned  the  actual  seizure  of  that  territory  pro- 
fessedly for  Waterboer,  by  the  Colonial  Government, 
by  armed  force,  pendente  lite,  before  either  the  plaintiff 
had  proved  his  claim,  or  the  defendant's  case  had 
been  heard  in  reply  ? 

2.  Before  the  Convention  of  1854  was  executed,  the 
Duke  of  Newcastle,  in  a  despatch  f  dated  "  Downing 
Street,  November  14th,  1853,"  directed  the  Special 
Commissioner,  Sir  George  Clerk, 

"  That  the  bases"  (of  the  proposed  Convention)  "  should  be  .  .  . 
in  the  form  of  Articles  ...  of  a  treaty  between  independent  powers. 
The  articles  agreed  on  with  the  Transvaal  boers  appear  to  furnish 
a  ready  precedent  for  such  a  Convention." 

The  Articles  referred  to, 

"  Guarantee,  in  the  fullest  manner,  on  the  part  of  the  British 
Government,  to  the  emigrant  farmers  beyond  the  Yaal,  the  rigid  to 
manage  their  own  affairs,  and  to  govern  themselves,  without  any  inter- 
ference on  the  part  of  Her  Majesty  the  Queen's  Government,  and 
that  no  encroachment  shall  he  made  by  the  said  Government  on  the  territory 
beyond  to  the  north  of  the  Vaal  River  ...  it  being  understood  that 
this  system  of  non-interference  is  binding  upon  both  parties."! 

*  Adam  Kok  having  departed  with  all  his  people,  in  1862 — 3,  is  out 
of  the  case. 

t  Vide  p.  88,  Art.  7,  Blue  Book,  No.  3,  "  Orange  River  Corre- 
spondence," 1851-4." 

X  Vids  p.  36,  Blue  Book.  No.  2,  "  Orange  Biver  Correspondence, 
1851—4. 


238  BRITISH    INTERVENTION    [LLEGAL. 

This  Treaty  lias  been  law  ever  since  it  was  made. 
What,  I  should  like  to  know,  does  Her  Majesty's 
Government  term  the  seizure  of  the  Campbell-lands — 
all  being*  "  North  of  the  Vaal  River  "  ?  If  it  is  not  a  very 
considerable  "  encroachment,"  and  a  very  gross  viola- 
tion of  all  the  terms  of  the  Treaty,  then  has  the 
English  language  lost  its  old  meaning ! 

The  Convention  entered  into  with  the  Orange  Free 
State  in  1854,  was  founded  upon  the  above  ;  and  how 
that  was  interpreted  (and  has  been,  ever  since  its 
origin,  until  the  discovery  of  diamonds)  is  fully  ex- 
plained in  a  reply  from  the  Office  of  the  Secretary  of 
State  for  the  Colonies,  dated  "  Downing  Street,  July 
22nd,  1853,"  to 

"  A  memorial  agreed  upon  at  a  meeting  of  delegates  from  the 
committee  of  the  societies  therein  named,  relative  to  the  conduct  of 
the  boers  towards  the  natives  in  the  Trans-Vaal  territory  .  .  . 

' '  The  Duke  of  Newcastle  requests  that  you  will  state  .  .  .  that 
the  friendly  offices  of  the  British  Government  .  .  .  shall  be  used 
to  induce  the  Trans- Vaal  boers  to  respect  the  rights  of  the  natives, 
but  as  the  Convention  with  those  boers  recognized  their  independ- 
ence, any  act  of  interference  which  might  lead  to  collision  is  totally  out 
of  the  question"* 

England's  honour,  and  her  treaty  obligalions,  were 
respected  in  those  days  ! 

Having  proved  by  the  stipulations  of  the  two  exist- 
ing Treaties  with  the  South  African  Republic  and  the 
Orange  Free  State,  as  well  as  by  the  unmistakcablc 
words  and  interpretation  of  a  former  British  Govern- 
ment, that  England  had  no  right  whatever  to  interfere 
in  Waterboer's  case — no  right  whatever  to  do  more 
than  she  would  have  dared  to  do  with  Prussia  or  the 

*  Vide  p.  87,  Blue  Book,  No.  3,  "  Orange  River  Correspondence 
1851—4." 


FELONIOUS    INTENT    OF    THE    LATE  CAPE    RULERS.      239 

United  States,  vte.,  use  her  a  friendly  offices,"  I  will 
now  proceed  to  point  out  the  unfriendly,  hostile,  and 
unwarrantable  course  really  pursued  towards  the  Free 
State,  in  order  to  steal  its  diamond-fields. 

As  we  have  seen,  the  result  of  the  meeting  at 
Nooitgedacht  transpired  in  President  Brand's  Pro- 
clamation. 

By  the  despatches  I  am  about  to  quote,  bearing 
date  loth  and  19th  September,  1870,  written  by  the 
Colonial  Government  in  reply  to,  or  in  consequence  of 
that  Proclamation,  it  will  be  seen  that  instead  of 
causing  their  correspondent  Waterboer,  the  plaintiff  to 
lands  neither  then  nor  ever  before  in  his  possession, 
to  prove  his  case,  they  not  only  at  once  accepted  and 
endorsed  his  mere  ipse  dixit,  his  ex-parte  statements,  but 
actually  so  far  outraged  the  entire  letter  and  spirit  of 
British  jurisprudence  as  to  call,  with  a  cool  and  unpar- 
alleled audacity,  upon  the  defendants,  the  Orange  Free 
State,  to  prove  its  title  to  its  own  property ;  its  claim 
to  territory  de  jure  and  do  facto  its  own ;  its  right,  in 
fact,  to  itself! 

From  the  15th  September,  1870,  we  may  date  a  new 
era  in  the  political  his  tor}'  of  Adamantia,  which  may 
1)0  described  as  the  controversial  period,  the  beginning 
of  which  was  initiated  on  the  day  mentioned  by  the 
first  despatch  from  a  British  official  calling  in  question 
the  right  of  the  Free  State  to  that  territory,  and  affirm- 
ing the  claims  of  Waterboer. 

In  order  to  justify  the  words  of  my  preface,  as  to  the 
u gross  misrepresentations  and  fatse  evidence"  supplied  by 
the  Colonial  Government, — the  "  selfish,  illegal,  and 
dishonourable  combination  to  plunder  the  Free  State 
of  the  diamond-fields," — I  find  the  best  way  will  be  to 


240 


i  OMMENCEMENT    OF    THE    CONTROVERSY. 


subject  the  despatches  of  that  Government  to  critical 
analysis  by  the  plan  of  parallel  columns. 

*  "  Government  House,  Cape  Town,  15th  September,  1870. 
11  His  Honour  the  President  of  the  Orange  Free  State. 


Despatch. 

"Sir,  —  I  observe  by  the 
Friend  of  the  Free  State  news- 
paper of  the  8th  inst.,  that  you 
have,  by  Proclamation  dated  at 
Klipdrift,  on  the  Vaal  Eiver,  the 
12  9th  August  last,  proclaimed 
certain  lands  north  of  the  Yaal 
River,  and  commonly  called  the 
Campbell  lands,  to  be  Free  State 
property,  by  virtue  of  a  deed  of 
sale,  dated  26th  December,  1861, 
executed  by  Mr.  Henry  Harvey, 
purporting  to  be  the  authorized 
Agent  of  Captain  Adam    Kok. 


(a.)  And  as  I  am  in  communica- 
tion with  the  Griqua  Chief  Water- 
hoer  on  the  subject  of  lands  claimed 
by  him,  and  over  which  he  and  Ms 
people  appear  to  be  desirous  that 
Tier  Majesty  the  Queen  should  ex- 
ercise Sovereignty,  I  shall  be  glad  if 
you  will  furnish  me  with  any  proofs 
your  Government  may  possess  re- 
specting said  purchase  from  Mr. 
H.  Survey,  and  of  his  authority 
to  sell  in  the  name  of  Adam  JToJc, 
as  ivell  as  of  Adam  Kok'' s  title  to 
such  lands. 

2.  By  communications  received 
bvme  from  the  .Chief  Waterboer, 


Remarks. 

Although  this  is  the  least 
important  of  the  despatches  in 
question,  so  far  as  my  object  is 
concerned,  it  still  has  some  his- 
torical value  as  being  the  begin- 
ning of  the  dispute  between  the 
British  Government  and  the 
Orange  Free  State,  and  it  also 
proves  the  previous  correspond- 
ence, or  understanding,  existing 
between  Waterboer  and  the  Co- 
lonial authorities. 

That  word  "  purporting,"  in 
the  first  despatch,  shows  the 
animus  of  the  Colonial  Govern- 
ment. 

(a.)  That  the  Colonial  Govern- 
ment being  "  in  communication 
with  Waterboer,"  and  entertain- 
ing "  the  subj  ect  of  lands  claimed 
by  him  "  from  the  Free  State, 
was  illegal,  was  unfriendly  and 
hostile  to  the  Free  State,  is 
proved  by  the  terms  of  "  Art. 
II.  of  the  Convention  of  1854, 
as  well  as  by  the  Treaty  with 
the  Trans-vaal  boers,  and  by  the 
words  of  the  Duke  of  Newcastle 
— the  three  official  papers  quoted 
a  few  pages  before. 

No  doubt  Waterboer  was 
"  desirous  that  Her  Majesty 
should    exercise     Sovereignty" 


*  Vide  p.  4,  Cape  Town  Blue  Book,  No.  1,  1871. 


FIRST  OFFICIAL  NOTICE  OF  THE 


"line" 


CLAIMED.      241 


it  appears  that  he  not  only  claims 
the  Campbell  lands  on  the  right 
Bank  of  the  Vaal  River  to  be 
Griqua  territory,  but  also  lands 
on  the  left  bank  of  the  said 
river,  extending  to  lines  drawn 
(b)  from  Ramah  on  the  Orange 
River  to  *  David's  Graf,1  near  the 
conflamcs  of  the  Riet  and  Modder 
Rivers,  and  thence  to  Platberg  on 
the  Vaal  River. 


3.  "It  will  become  my  duty 
shortly  to  bring  these  matters 
under  the  consideration  of  Her 
Majesty's  Government,  and  I 
shall  be  glad  if  your  Honour 
will  be  pleased  to  favour  me 
with  (<?)  information  relative  to 
the  title,  if  any  (sic),  possessed 
by  the  Orange  Free  State  to 
the  lands  east  of  the  Yaal  River. 


4.  "I  am  aware  that  the  Free 
State  claims  them,  but  I  am  not 
in  possession  of  any  proof  of 
title. 

5.  "I  find  that  my  predeces- 
sor in  office,  who  was  requested 
by  your  Government  and  by 
the  Chief  Waterboer  to  arbi- 
trate between  them  respect* 
ing  their  id)  territorial  rights, 
suggested  to  you,  on  the  24th 
August,  1869,  that  you  should 
communicate  to  him  clearly  and 
distinctly  the  several  questions 
in  which  the  disagreement  sub- 


over  the  diamond  fields,  or  Ada- 
mantia,  which  is  just  the  terri- 
tory cut  off  from  the  Free  State 
by  the  "lines"  mentioned!  It 
was  the  only  way  he  could  get 
a  finger  in  the  diamondiferous 
pie,  for,  certes,  with  his  wretched 
200  yellow-skins  he  could  nor 
wrest  it  by  force  from  the  Free 
State !  But  by  what  title,  law,  to 
authority  does  the  ostensible 
writer  of  the  despatch,  General 
Hay,  prove  that  he  had  any 
right  to  thus  question  the  Free 
State  in  Waterboer's  interest? 
Have  we  not  shown  that  his  duty 
was  exactly  the  reverse  ?  That 
only  "friendly  offices "  were 
justified  ? 

(b)  This  is  the  first  official 
declaration  of,  and  claim  to  the 
line  from  "  Ramah,  via  David's 
Graf,  to  Platberg,"  by  or  for 
"Waterboer. 

(c)  General  Hay  should  have 
read  the  Convention  of  1854,  as- 
certained the  titles  given  over 
by  the  Sovereignty,  and  have 
found  out  how  all  his  predeces- 
sors in  the  gubernatorial  office 
had  acted,  then  he  would  have 
known  what  "title"  the  Free 
State  "  possessed  "  !  It  is  diffi- 
cult to  believe  that  a  British 
General,  Governor,  and  High 
Commissioner  for  the  Cape  can 
have  been  really  so  lamentably 
ignorant  of  his  duties,  of  the 
previous  political  and  general 
history  of  the  country!  One 
would     think,      instead,     some 

It 


242 


Animus   OF  THE   CAPE   GOVERNMENT. 


sisted,  to  be  accompanied  by  a 
sketch  of  the  country,  showing 
the  principal  disputed  points, 
"which  does  not  appear  as  yet 
to  have  been  complied  with. 


6.  (e)  Under  all  these  circum- 
stances, I  take  leave  to  suggest 
that  it  will  be  premature  for  the 
Government  of  the  Orange  Free 
State  to  proceed  to  the  planting 
of  beacons,  as  stated  in  the 
proclamation  before-mentioned 
to  be  its  intention,— and  await- 
ing your  reply, 

"I  have,  &c, 
"  0.  Hay, 
"  I^ieut.-Gen.,  ad  High  Com- 
missioner." 


sinister   motive    existed  for  the 
pretence. 

(d)  This  is  a  misstatement ; 
the  right  to  the  Campbell-lands 
was  offered  for  arbitration.  And 
that  offer  having  been  negatived 
and  withdrawn,  the  subject 
having  been  settled  was  defunct 
and  irrelevant.  General  Hay 
demands  compliance.  Compli- 
ance with  what?  The  Free 
State's  own  obsolete  wishes  ? 

(e)  The  arrogance  of  this  un- 
justifiable and  cowardly  menace 
is  supreme  !  Would  General 
Hay  have  dared  to  make  it  to  a 
military  power,  say  France  or 
Germany  ?  By  what  right  did 
he  break  the  convention  of  185 -i, 
&c,  and  forbid  the  Free  State  to 
plant  beacons  to  its  own  (or 
alleged)  territory  ?  Does  not  the 
«n  funis  fur  and/',  as  applied  to  the 
diamond  fields,  already  begin  to 
appear  ? 


The  Government  of  the  Free  State  having  early  in 
September  appointed  a  special  Commissioner  for  its 
diamond  fields,  then  beginning  to  get  rapidly  thronged 
with  diggers,  the  Colonial  Government  became  furious, 
considering  that  act,  no  doubt,  as  inimical  to  their 
plan  or  intention  to  obtain,  through  AVaterboer,  the 
diamond  fields  for  themselves.  In  no  other  way  can 
their  interference  at  all, — the  temper  they  displayed 
at  this  news,  and  the  partizanship  of  which  their 
every  despatch  convicts  them,  —  be  accounted  for. 

On  the  19th  September,    only  four    days   aft 
first  despatch,  they  threw  off  the  faint  mask  of  impar- 


GENERAL    HAY'S    ARROGANCE. 


248 


tiality,  and  clearly  took  sides  with  Watcrboer,  by  the 
following  insolent,  illogical,  undiplomatic,  and  ill-tem- 
perccl  composition  : — 

*  "  Government  House,  Cape  Town,  19th  September,  1870. 
"His  Honour  the  President  of  the  Orange  Free  State. 

Remarks. 

(a)  What  does  General  Hay 
intend  to  imply  by  this  expres- 
sion? It  is  a  ease  of  muddy 
stream  for  the  hungry  wolf! 
Why  should  not  the  Free  State 
Government  have  "  taken  further 
action"  by  appointing  a  special 
Commissioner  in  its  own  terri- 
tory ?  Mr.  Truter  was  placed  at 
IViel, — proved,  in  our  review 
of  Waterboer's  AnnexureNo.  8, 
Chapter  IX.,  to  have  been  sold 
by  Cornelius  Kok  to  the  Berlin 
Missionary  Society,  twenty-five 
years  ago,  and  never  since,  till 
n©w,  claimed  by  either  of  the 
Waterboers.  From  the  year  1854, 
moreover,  Pniel  ivas  always  In- 
cluded within  the  jurisdiction  of  a 
Free  State  Magistracy,— for  years 
that  ofJacoosdal !  Is  this  nineteen 
years'  legal  possession  to  be  de- 
crib  ed  as  "assuming jurisdiction"  ? 

General  Hay's  facts  will  be 
found  of  the  nature  of  those  of 
which  it  has  well  been  said, 
"there  is  nothing  so  fallacious 
as  'figures,'   except  'facts.'  " 

(b)  This  notification  was  tan- 
tamount to  a  declaration  of  war, 
as    issued    against    a    friendly 


Despatch. 
"Sir,  —  Since  addressing  to 
you  my  despatch  of  15th  inst., 
I  have  observed  by  the  public 
newspapers  that  your  Govern- 
ment has,  after  issuing  the  Pro- 
clamation to  which  in  that  com- 
munication I  alluded,  (a)  taken 
fart  iter  action,  and  appointed  a 
Mr.  0.  J.  Truter  to  be  Commis- 
sioner for  the  diamond  fields, 
and  Justice  of  the  Peace  for 
the  whole  State,  including,  I 
presume,  the  territory  claimed 
by  the  Chief  Waterboer,  and,  if 
so,  assuming  jurisdiction  over  a 
large  number  of  British  subjects 
at  present  residing  within  that 
territory. 


"I,  therefore,  deemit  my  duty 
to  draw  your  Honour's  attention 
to  certain  facts"  (?)  "  respecting 
the  territory  in  question,  as 
shown  by  documents  in  my 
possession  ;  and  to  acquaint  you 
that  (V)  I  shall  at  once  issue  a 
notice  to  all  British  subjects,  warn- 


*  Vide  p.  5,  Cape  Town  Blue  Book,  No.  1,  1871. 


R   2 


'244 


GENERAL    IlAV  s    DUPLICITY. 


ing  them  against  being  parties  to 
the  assumption  of  territorial  right* 

OVER  LANDS  (c)  BELONGING  TO 
NATIVE    C1IIEES    AND     PEOPLE,    by 

in  any  way  aiding  and  abetting 
such  assumption,  or  by  acknow- 
ledging those  rights ;  and  in 
order  that  all  may  understand 
the  aspect  which  the  present 
})Osition  of  affairs  seems  to  me 
to  bear,  I  shall  publish  this  and 
my  previous  despatch  and  other 
documents  in  elucidation  thereof. 


"  You  are  aware  that  long  be- 
fore Sir  Harry  Smtih  .  .  .  pro- 
claimed the  Sovereignty  of  Her 
Majesty  the  Queen  of  England 
over  certain  territories  north  of 
the  Orange  River,  her  Majest}^ 
was  in  alliance  by  treaty  (d)  with 
the  Chief  Waterboer  .  .  and 
that  the  territories  of  the  said 
Chief  were  not  included  in  those 
over  which  her  Majesty's  Sove- 
reignty was  proclaimed. 


''Before  the  period  above  al- 
luded to,  and  in  the  year  1838, 
as  appears  by  the  annexed  (<?)  ex- 


State,  and  did  eventually  nearly 
attain  that  result. 

(c)  Here  is  the  first  positive 
recognition  of  Waterboer's  ea 
parte  and  fraudulent  claims ; 
the  diamond  fields  are  declared 

to    be  "  LANDS  BELONGING    TO    NA- 
TIVE Chiefs  and  people  !  " 

After  this  distinct  avowal  of 
partizanship,  all  argument  (as 
may  well  be  supposed)  proved 
futile.  Everything  Waterboer 
asserted  was  eagerly  accepted 
as  Gospel ;  everything  the  Free 
State  alleged  was  just  as  readily 
and  certainly  contradicted ! 

(d)  This  assertion  is  a  most 
deliberate  case  of  suppressio  veri 
suggestio  falsi  !  Does  General 
Hay  mean  to  deny  the  fact,  that 
General  Sir  George  Cathcart 
cancelled  the  treaty  in  question  ? 
In  a  despatch*  to  the  Duke 
of  Newcastle,  dated  "  Graham's 
Town,  March  15,  1853,  Sir 
George  Cathcart  states  "  As 
there  were  certain  stipulations  in 
the  treaty  .  .  .  which  would 
be  incompatible  with  the  Conven- 
tion entered  into  with  the  Trans- 
vaal emigrants,  I  have  declined 
to  renew  it  in  favour  of  the  existing 
interest."  It  never  was  renewed ! 
We  have  previously  shown  that 
Waterboer's  territories  "  were 
not  included"  within  the  Sove- 
reignty, because  they  were  north 
of  the  Yaal ;  a  fact  General  Ha}' 


*  Vide  p.  2,  Blue   Book 
1851-4." 


No.  3,  "  Orange   River    Correspondence,. 


THE  GENERAL  GARBLES  AND  FALSIFIES  DOCUMENTS. 


tract  from  a  written  agreement  then 
entered  into  between  Waterboer 
and  Adam  Kok,  the  Griqua 
people  divided  themselves  into 
two  separate  and  independent 
portions  ;  one  portion  to  remain 
under  the  supremacy  of  Andries 
Waterboer,  the  predecessor  of 
the  present  Captain  Nicolas 
Waterboer,  as  chief,  and  resident 
at  Griqua  Town,  the  other  por- 
tion under  xhat  of  Adam  Kok, 
whose  residence  was  at  Philip- 
polis.  By  that  agreement  it  was 
stipulated  that  Waterboer's  East- 
ern boundary  should  be  (/)  from 
Eamah  northward  toPlatberg. 
And  so  much  of  this  boundary 
as  extends  (g)  from  Ramah  on  the 
Orange  River  to  David's  Graf,  near 
the  confluence  of  Eiet  and  Mod- 
der  Eivers,  has  frequently  since, 
in  treaties  and  other  public 
documents,  been  admitted  by 
Kok  and  Waterboer,  and  by  the 
Governors  of  this  Colony,  to  be 
that  dividing  the  two  portions 
■of  the  Griqua  territory  (h).  The 
continuation  of  the  eastern  boun- 
dary of  Waterboer  northwards 
from  David's  Graf  to  Platberg 
is  not  brought  forward  in  the  latter 
of  these  particular  documents  with 
the  same  prominence,  by  reason  of 
the  fact  that  in  all  of  them 
Adam  Kok's  territory  was  treated 
as  confined  on  the  north  by  the 
line  of  the  Modeler  Ever;  and 


should  have    taken  the  trouble 
to  ascertain. 

(e)  This  "  annexed  agree- 
ment" is  none  other  than  Water- 
boer's Annexure  No.  5,  of  which 
we  disposed  in  Chapter  VIII. 

It  will  be  seen  that  General 
Hay  fully  accepts  all  Water- 
boer's false  and  crafty  case — 
the  main  object  being  to  ignore 
Cornelius  Kok. 

(/)  General  Hay  here  actually 
descends  to  garble  and  falsify 
the  spurious  document  he  pre- 
tends to  quote  !  This  is  the  pas- 
sage :  "The  boundary  of  the 
Western  portion,  ruled  by 
Andries  Waterboer  at  Griqua 
Town,  will  be  from  Eamah  on 
the  East,  along  the  boundary 
of  the  Colony  westward  to 
Kheis,  and  northwards  to 
Platberg.  "* 

(g)  This  is  a  gross  misrepre- 
sentation. JVo  such  extent  of 
boundary  is  mentioned;  no  such 
place  as  " David' 's  Graf''  is  even 
named  in  the  spurious  agreement, 
Waterboer's  Annexure  JVo.  5  ! 

The  line  from  Eamah  to  Da- 
vid's Graf  having  been  made 
subsequent  to  1840,  could  not 
have  been  described  by  an 
"agreement"  dated  1838.  It 
"  has  frequently  since,  in  treaties, 
&c,  been  admitted  by  Kok  and 
Waterboer,  &c."  ;  but  as  a  boun- 
dary between  the    Captains  Adam 


*   Vide  pp.  7  and  73,  Cape  Town  Blue  Bool?,  No.  1,  1871,  and  p.  34 
Amiexures,  O.F.S.  Blue  Book,  "Minutes  of  Meeting  at  Nouit^edacht." 


246 


rURTHEE    MISREPRESENTATION. 


consequently  ^vitU  Waterboer's 
Eastern  boundary,  North  of 
David's  Graf,  Adam  Ivok  had 
no  concern. 


(*)  •'  So  far,  therefore,  these 
documents  appear  to  substan- 
tiate the  claim  which  Waterboer 
maintains  to  lands  northward 
and  westward  of  lines  drawn 
from  Eamah  to  David's  Graf, 
and  thence  to  Platber£. 


"  But  your  Government  alleges 
that  in  the  year  18G1,  and,  con- 
sequently, subsequent  to  the 
dates  of  the  documents  above 
mentioned,  it  has  become  pos- 
sessed of  certain  portions  of  the 
territory  held  by  Waterboer  to 
be  his,  by  virtue  of  the  sale  and 
cession  made  to  it  by  one  Henry 
Harvey,  as  the  agent  of  Adam 
Ivok,  who,  it  is  said,  sold,  and 
i he    Government    of    the    Free 


and  Cornelius  Koh — not  Wiiter- 
boer .'  As  we  have  previously 
shown,  he  never  had  anything 
to  do  with  that  line,  until  the 
Free  State,  in  1855,  was  the 
first  to  recognize  his  right  to 
Albania,  between  that  line  and 
the  Vetberg  line.  (See  pp.  71 
and  82,  Chapter  IV.) 

(h)  Another  misrepresentation  L 
General  Hay  says  that  the  con- 
tinuation of  the  line  "from 
David's  Graf  to  Platberg  is  not 
brought  forward  rvith  the  same 
prominence." — Why,  it  is  not 
mentioned  at  all ! 

(i)  As  we  have  proved  and 
argued  already  usque  ad  nauseam , 
no  such  line  ever  existed ;  until,  in 
fact,  it  iv as  for  the  very  first  time 
officially  endorsed  and  described  by 
General  Hay !  The  whole  of 
this  fraudulently  trumped-up 
case  rests  upon  the  validity  of 
Waterboer's  Annexurc  No.  5,  the 
alleged  "agreement"  of  1S38, 
which  is  distorted  and  misquoted 
to  try  and  make  out  a  line  from 
"  Eamah  northwards  to  Plat- 
berg," whereas,  in  letter,  a  line  is 
described  from  Eamah  ■westwards 
to  Kheis,  and  thence  northwards  to 
Platberg!  How  poor  " David's 
grave"  is  drawn  into  the  matter, 
neitherWaterboer  nor  his  backers 
deign  to  explain.  Of  course,  the 
responsibility  to  prove  that  the 
spurious  "agreement"  was  ful- 
filled, and  the  alleged  line  ever 
maintained,  rests  upon  Water- 
boer and  Co.  ;  but  to  do   these: 


CONTINUED   JIISTATEMENTS. 


247 


State  purchased,  not  only  the 
lands  still  remaining  as  Adam 
Kok's,  but  also  the  lands  of 
Cornelius  Kok,  (/),  a  deceased 
relative  of  Adam  Kok,  who  in  his 
lifetime  resided  at  Campbell. 

"With  regard  to  this  alleged 
sale  and  purchase,  Waterboer 
represents  : — 

"  1st.  (k)  That  Cornelius  Kok 
was  a  British  subject,  born 
within  this  colony,  and  resident 
therein  until  of  age  ;  after  which 
he  came  to  Griqua  Town,  (I)  and 
was  by  Andries  Waterboer  ap- 
pointed a  petty  officer  under  his 
government  and  stationed  at 
Campbell,  where  he  continued 
to  reside,  and  where  he  exer- 
cised the  authority  deputed  to 
him  by  Waterboer  until  deprived 
of  office  for  misconduct. 


"  2nd.  (m)  That  during  all  this 
time,  and  thereafter  until  the 
death  of  Cornelius  Kok,  no 
fresh  treaty  or  agreement  had 
been  made  between  Waterboer 
and  Adam  Kok,  respecting 
boundaries. 


things,  they  have  not  yet 
(January,  1873)  condescended — 
evidently  (and  rightly  the  result 
proves)  deeming  the  argument  urn 
baculinum  sufficient. 

(j)  The  duplicity  of  represent- 
ing Cornelius  Kok  thus,  when 
he  was  the  Captain  and  supreme 
Chief  of  Campbell,  is  most  appa- 
rent. 

(k)  This  applies  equally  to 
Andries  Waterboer,  the  first 
Chief  of  that  name. 

(I)  The  entire  falsehood  of  this 
statement,  we  have  already 
fully  proved  (see,  in  especial, 
pp.  35  to  39,  Chapter  II.,  pp. 
71—2,  and  82,  Chapter  IV.;  the 
review  of  Annexure  No.  6,  Chap- 
ter IX.,  and  Chaps.VIL,  VIII., 
IX.,  and  X.  generally).  Not  one 
order  or  command  of  a  Water- 
boer to  Cornelius  Kok  has  ever 
been  produced!  Not  an  atom 
of  proof  of  his  alleged  deposi- 
tion has  ever  been  forthcoming ! 
And  we  have  seen  that  in  1857 
he  abdicated  by  his  own  will  in 
favour  of  Adam  Kok !  and 
that  Waterboer  never  pro- 
tested ! 

(m)  With  regard  to  this  pa- 
ragraph, it  is  first  of  all  neces- 
sary for  Waterboer  and  Co.  to 
prove  the  existence  and  execu- 
tion of  the  alleged  "  treaty  or 
agreement "  of  1838. 

(m)  General  Hay,  in  support- 
ing this  statement,  displays, 
either  gross  ignorance  or  gross 
bias,  if  not    something   worse. 


248 


DELIBERATE    FALSIFICATION. 


"3rd.  (n)  That  Cornelius  Kok 
had  no  territorial  rights,  nor  had 
Adam  Kok  any  authority  to  sell, 
nor  in  fact,  did  he,  by  his  power 
!>f  attorney,  (0)  authorize  Har- 
yey  to  sell  any  portion  of  the 
Campbell  Lands,  over  which 
Cornelius  Kok's  petty  jurisdic- 
tion had  at  one  time  extended ; 
and  that  his  said  power  of  attor- 
ney to  Harvey  was  limited  strict- 
ly to  lands  vested  in  him  in  his 
capacity  as  chief  of  the  Griquas 
of  the  town  and  district  of  Philip- 
polis,  to  which  the  Campbell 
lands  never  belonged,  and  con- 
tains no  reference  to  any  lands 
claimed  by  him  as  heir  to  Cor- 
nelius Kok, — (p)  ivhich,  in  fact, 
Waterboer  asserts  he  was  not. 


"In  support  of  the  foregoing 
propositions,  Waterboer  refers 
to  the  agreement  of  1838,  and 
other  documents,  among  which 
are  the  following,  viz.  : 

11  (a)  A  letter  from  Adam  Kok 
and  his  councillors  to  Gover- 
nor Sir  George  Napier,  dated  12th 
November,  1843,  {q)  in  which 
reference  is  made    to   the    said 


Either  he  did  not  know  of  the 
formal  recognition  of  Cornelius 
Kok  as  the  territorial  Chief  of 
Campbell  by  the  despatoh  from 
the  Colonial  Government — (An- 
nexure  No.  1,  quoted  verbatim 
at  the  beginning  of  Chapter  X.) 
— or  he  chose  to  ignore  it. 

(0)  The  remainder  of  the  4 '  3rd' ' 
proposition  is  an  intentional 
mistatement  and  garbling  of 
facts.  We  have  seen  that  Adam 
Kok  had  "authority"  over  the 
Campbell  lands  by  his  uncle's 
abdication  in  his  favour  in  1857  ; 
the  power  of  attorney — (quoted 
atp.  91,  Chapter  V., inextenso) — 
gave  Harvey  zmlimited  authority 
to  sell  and  dispose  of  all  Adam 
Kok's  territory,  including,  of 
course,  that  of  the  late  Cornelius; 
the  "deed  of  sale" — (quoted 
inextenso,  p.  93,  Chapter V.,) — 
expressly  declares  that  Mr.  Har- 
vey had  special  authority  to  sell, 
not  only  Adam  Kok's  land,  but 
"  I  ike  wise  that  of  the  late  Cornelias 
Kok!"  Adam  Kok  agreed  to 
this,  took  the  money  in  pay- 
ment, and  Waterboer  never  ob- 
jected until  now  ! 

(p)  Our  review  of  the  Free 
State  document,  Annexure  No. 
23,  in  Chapter  X.,  effectually 
proves,  by  his  own  words,  that 
Adam  Kok  was  the  "  lawful  suc- 
cessor "  of  Cornelius. 

(q)  Eeference  is  not  made  to 
"said  treaty,"  only  to  "a 
treaty,"  which  is  not  in  any  way 
described,  and  cannot  be  identi 


GENERAL  HAY  MISQUOTES  THE  EVIDENCE. 


249 


treat//  with  Waterboer  as  defi- 
ning the  boundary  between  the 
latter  and  the  writer. 


"  (b)  A  circular  letter  addres- 
sed by  the  (r)  late  Colonial  Sec- 
retary of  this  Colony,  Mr.  Mon- 
tagu, to  A.  Waterboer,  Adam 
Kok,  and  Moshesh,  dated  18th 
April,  1845,  requesting  answers 
to  several  queries  respecting 
(among  other  things)  the  lines 
and  conditions  of  their  respective 
boundaries,  in  how  iar  the  same 
were  defined  by  treaties,  and 
what  tribes  were  their  neigh- 
bours ;  (*)  with  the  answers 
thereto  of  A* tarn  Kok  and  A. 
Waterboer,  each  of  whom  agrees 
in  considering  the  other  as  his 
next  neighbour,  and  admits  that 
the  line  between  them  had  been 
settled  by  treaty. 


a  (c)  A  paper  addressed  by 
Adam  Kok  to  Waterboer,  in 
1848,  representing  that,  as  many 
of  his  people  were  leaving  the 
Philippoiis  district,  (t)  ai-d  pro- 
ceeding to  Campbell,  they  would  in 
consequence  be  beyond  his  jurisdic- 
tion, and  within  that  of  Waterboer. 

"(d)  The  power  of  attorney 
granted     by     Adam     Kok      to 


fied.  The  only  ''boundary" 
mentioned  between  the  writer 
and  Waterboer  is  the  place 
"Ramah."  Not  a  word  is  said 
of  the  pseudo  line  "  from  Ramah 
via  David's  Graf  to  Platberg  /" 

(r)  Is  it  not  at  least  singular 
that  General  Hay  can  support 
a  certain  circular  letter  addres- 
sed to  A.  Waterboer  by  the  late 
Colonial  Secretary,  but  remains 
so  calmly  oblivious  to  the  letter 
or  despatch  addressed  to  Cor- 
nelius Kok,  by  the  present  Co- 
lonial Secretary,  on  the  1st  May, 
1848? — Annexure  No.  1,  of  the 
Free  State  case. 

(«)  These  answers  (Annexure* 
Nos.  7  and  8  of  Waterboer's  case) 
have  been  already  fully  noticed 
in  Chapter  IX.  We  need  only 
again  observe  that  only  the 
kraal,  Eamah,  is  given  as  the 
boundary  between  the  two  Chiefs, 
and  that  nothing  is  said  of  a  line 
"from  Ramah  via  David's  Graf, 
to  Platberg!" 

{t)  This  is  a  gross  misquota- 
tion. The  " paper"  (Annexure 
No.  13,  reviewed  in  Chapter  IX.) 
distinctly  mentions  two  districts, 
viz.,  "  the  districts  of  Campbell 
and  Griqua  Town,"  hut  only 
gives  AVaterboer  power  over  one, 
to  punish  subjects  of  Adam 
Kok's  "guilty  of  any  crime 
whatever  within  the  jurisdiction 
of  Griqua  Town,"  not  Camp- 
bell !* 


*  Vide  p.  42,  Aunexures,  0.  F.  S.  Blue  Book,  "Minutes  of  Meeting  at 
Nooitgedacht." 


250 


GENERAL    HAY  S    M  EN  D  AC  IT  V    CON  TIN  UK  D . 


Harvey,  under  which  the  sale  to 
the  Free  State  was  made,  (u) 

"(e)  A  notice  published  by 
Adam  Kok,  dated  loth  Novem- 
ber, 18  02,  in  which  ho  denies 
] laving  authorized  the  sale  of 
any  rights  to  land  north  of  the 
Vaal  River.  (/• 


"(f)  A  letter  addressed  to 
Waterboer  by  the  President  of 
the  Free  State,  dated  28th 
April,  1862,  after  the  date  of 
the  alleged  sale,  in  which  the 
writer  (w)  admits  Waterboer-'' s 
right  of  jurisdiction  on  the  left 
lank  of  the  Vaal  Hirer,  and  invites 
a  meeting  at  Jacobsdal,  a  place 
near  David's  Graf,  which  latter 
spot  Waterboer  (.?■'  has  always 
claimed  as  one  of  the  defining 
points  of  his  boundary. 


"  These  documents  certainly 
appear  to  me  to  show  a  strong 
prima  facie  case  in  favour  of 
//  //  'aterboer'  s  riyh  t  of  sovereign  ty 
over  the  territory  which  your  pro- 
clamation claims  as  belonging  to 


(u)  We  have  already  suffi- 
ciently dealt  with  this  document 
in  Chapter  V.  By  it,  if  Adam 
Kok  was  the  "lawful  successor" 
to  Cornelius,  all  the  latter's  land 
was  sold. 

(?;)  General  Hay  overlooks  the 
fact  that  this  "notice  "  (reviewed 
at  p.  97,  Chapter  V.,  and  as 
Anncxure  No.  3G,  Chapter  IX.) 
fully  admits  the  sale  of  the  lands  on 
uthe  South  ban/c  of  the  Vaal  River, 
of  the  said  Cornelius  Kok"  now 
claimed  as  Waterboer's ! 

(iv)  This  is  an  inexcusable 
misrepresentation.  The  "letter" 
(fully  noticed  as  Annexure  No.  30, 
Chapter  IX.),  points  out  Water- 
boer's inefficient  jurisdiction,  but 
applies  to  Albania,  recognized, 
after  the  treaty  of  the  Yetberg 
line  in  1855,  and  ever  since  by 
the  Free  State,  as  his  only  terri- 
tory ' '  on  the  left  bank  of  the 
Yaal!" 

[x)  This  is  simply  untrue. 
Until  1863- \,  Waterboer  never 
claimed  David's  Graf,  but  then 
Mr.  David  Arnot's  supposed 
machinations  led  to  an  indirect 
claim  ;  the  first  direct  claim  was 
made  in  1870,  after  diamonds 
were  discovered,  and  General 
Hay  has  the  honour  of  being 
the  first  to  support  or  recog- 
nise the  pseudoline  tlvid  David's 
Graf." 

(jf)  This  perverse  view  dis- 
plays the  strong  predetermined 
bias  in  favour  of  Waterboer. 
Not  one  of  the  "  documents1'  even 


Suppressio  verl  mggestio  falsi 


251 


the  Free  State.  (3)  And  as, 
though  requested  by  my  pre- 
decessor to  furnish  him  with  a 
plan,  descriptive  of  the  bound- 
aries claimed  by  your  Govern- 
ment, and  proofs  of  such  of  them 
as  you  were  in  a  position  to  prove, 
you  have  declined,  or  at  least 
omitted,  to  furnish  any  such 
proof,  I  feel  bound,  provisionally, 
to  form  my  opinion  upon  the 
evidence  before  me. 


"This  being  so,  and  the  Chief 
Waterboer  having  always  acted 
in  a  faithful  and  friendly  manner 
towards  Her  Majesty's  Govern- 
ment, I  think  I  should  not  be 
acting  fairly  by  him  if  I  should 
allow,  without  remonstrance  or 
opposition,  what  at  present,  and 
in  the  absence  of  proof  to  the 
contrary,  I  must  consider  as  an 
unjustifiable  encroachment  upon 
his  independent  rights.  And  I 
therefore  notify  to  you  that  I  do 
not  acknowledge  the  claim  of 
sovereignty  put  forward  in  your 
proclamation  within  the  limits  of 
the  territory  in  dispute  between 
you  and  Waterboer  over  any 
subjects  of  her  Majesty  resident 
or  being  therein. 


'  'The  concourse  of  people  at  the 
diamond  fields,  however,  has 
received  my  close  consideration, 
and  with  a  view  to  prevent  the 
commission  of  crime  or  outrage 


asserts  the  exercise,  at  any  time, 
of  that  chiefs  sovereignty  over 
the  territory  in  quest ion  —  the 
Campbell  lands  ! 

(z)  From  this  point  to  the  end 
of  his  despatch,  General  Hay  ex- 
hibits the  animus  of  the  Colonial 
Government,  its  wilful  perversion 
of  notorious  facts,  all  of  which 
must  have  been  more  familiar 
to  it  than  to  the  public;  its  arro- 
gant, hostile,  and  aggressive  dis- 
position to  the  Free  State,  and 
(proved  by  its  subsequent  acts) 
its  determination  to  obtain  the 
precious  diamond  fields  by  sup- 
porting, per  fas  et  nefas,  the  in- 
significant, petty  chief,  Water- 
boer. 

The  fact  that  the  "  plan  "  and 
" proofs"  asked  for  by  his  pre- 
decessor, was  through  the  request 
of  the  Free  State,  and  that  by  the 
departure  of  the  said  predecessor, 
and  the  withdrawal  of  the  caso 
from  arbitration,  in  consequence, 
the  matter  had  terminated,  is 
suppressed,  and  it  is  falsely 
stated  that  the  Free  State  "de- 
clined" to  supply  evidence  ! 

What  does  General  Hay  mean 
by  the  gasconade,  if  he  "  should 
allow  "  the  Free  State  to  hold  its 
own  against  Waterboer  without 
"  opposition?  " 

By  what  known  right,  title,  or 
authority,  or  special  order  from 
the  British  Government,  does  he 
undertake  to  support  Waterboer 
against  the  Free  State  ? 

Does  he   in  ignorance  or  by 


2,32 


GENERAL    HAY  S 


ARMED    PRAYER    . 


by  any  of  Her  Majesty's  subjects 
therein,  I  have  taken  measures 
for  the  issuing  of  Magistrates' 
commissions  giving  jurisdiction 
over  such  subjects  under  the  pro- 
visions of  an  Act  of  the  Imperial 
Parliament,  2G  &  27  Victoria, 
cap.  xxxv. 

"I  have,  &c, 
"C.  Hay, 
"  Lieutenant-General, 
"High  Commissioner.1' 


intention  ignore  the  existing 
Treaties  with  the  Free  State  and 
Transvaal  Republics,  and  the  dis- 
tinct interpretations  ever  till  then 
put  upon  them  by  the  British 
Government  ? 

His  epilogue  lias  one  merit, 
viz.,  that  of  brevity  in  coming  to 
the  point. 

After  denouncing  the  actual 
possession  of  its  own  territory  by 
the  Free  States  as  an  "unjustifi- 
able encroachment  upon  JVaterboer7 a 
sovereign  rights  "  he  proceeds  to 
an  act  of  undoubted  "  unjustifi- 
able encroachment "  himself,  by 
declaring,  at  this  early  period 
of  the  proceedings,  in  his  second 
despatch,  without  waiting  for  any 
reply  from  the  Free  State,  the 
designs  of  his  Government  on 
the  diamond  fields,— the  appoint- 
ment of  British  Magistrates  there- 


The  despatch  we  have  just  analyzed  bears  but  one 
aspect.  For  the  very  first  time  in  the  political  history 
of  South  Africa,  Waterboer's  fraudulent  claims  are 
given  the  honour  and  comfort  of  a  respectable  Govern- 
ment's support ;  and  after  elaborately  and  deceitfully 
setting  forth,  by  a  series  of  preces  armatae,  the  details 
of  those  claimo,  his  conclusions  and  wishes  thereon, 
General  Hay  comes  to  the  primum  mobile  at  the  last 
(at  the  very  end  of  his  despatch,  as  though  shame  had 
so  long  kept  it  back)  by  declaring  his  intention  with 
regard  to  the  diamond  fields ;  and  these  things— the 
violation  of  Art  1  and  2  of  the  Convention  of  1854 — 
the  hostile,  unauthorized,  and  illegal  interference  in 


SUMMING-UP    OF    GENERAL    HAY'S    POLICY.  253 

favour  of  the  ill-conditioned  semi-savage  Waterboer 
against  tlie  Free  State,  and  the  hostile  invasion  of  its 
territory  preparing  and  foretold  by  the  statement  "  I 
have  taken  measures  for  the  issuing  of  Magistrates' 
commissions  giving  jurisdiction  "  over  what  had  been 
part  of  that  State  for  nineteen  years— the  whole  term  of 
its  existence — these  things  are  tantamount  to  a  declar- 
ation of  war ! 

General  Hay  was,  of  course,  at  perfect  liberty  to 
think  what  he  pleased,  to  offer  "friendly  offices  "  of 
his  Government  to  any  extent,  and  to  entertain  what 
view  he  chose  of  his  correspondent  Waterboer' s  claims ; 
but  the  moment  he  proceeded  to  action,  firstly  by 
backing  up,  maintaining,  and,  in  fact,  interfering  at 
all  in  any  such  case,  he  broke  the  existing  treaty-law 
.between  Great  Britain  and  the  Free  State  ;  secondly, 
whilst  by  daring  to  proclaim  and  appoint  a  British 
magistracy  over  the  disputed  diamond  fields  (actually, 
de  jure  and  de  facto,  for  many  years,  Free  State  terri- 
tory), he  deliberately  violated  the  most  positive 
principle  of  international  law,  and  unmistakably  fur- 
nished a  legal  casus  belli  to  that  State. 

The  legitimacy  of  my  second  proposition  is  estab- 
lished by  the  existence  of  the  Treaty  or  Convention 
of  1854,  and  by  the  fact  that  the  Orange  Free  State 
has  been  for  years  in  treaty  alliance  with,  and  recog- 
nized as  a  free  and  independent  State  by  the  United 
States  of  America,  and  ail  the  principal  Powers  of 
Europe. 

The  first  proposition  is  sufficiently  proved  by  the 
terms  of  the  existing  treaties  with  the  Transvaal  and 
the  Free  State,  disclaiming,  as  we  have  shown  re- 
peatedly, "all  alliances  ivkaiever  and  with  whomsoever  of  the 


2/»4  SUMMING-UP   CONTINUED. 

coloured  nations  north  of  the  Vaal  River  "  {vide  Treaty 
with  the  Transvaal);  or  "  any  interfere  nee  on  the  part 
of  Her  Majesty's  Government;"  "the  British  Govern- 
ment has  no  alliance  whatever  with  any  native  chiefs 
or  tribes  to  the  northward  of  the  Orange  River  .  .  . 
no  wish  or  intention  to  enter  hereafter  into  any  treaties, 
&c."(4rfc  2,  Convention  of  1854). 

How  General  Hay  misinterpreted  his  duties  we 
have  already  shown.  In  a  dispatch*  to  the  Transvaal, 
or  rather,  the  South  African  Republic,  of  the  same 
date  as  that  we  have  just  dealt  with,  in  claiming  the 
diamond-fields  for  Waterboer,  General  Hay  appends 
his  name  to  this  deliberate  mistatement :  he  describes 
that  Chief  as  one  "  who  is,  and  for  man//  years  has 
been,  in  treat//  alliance  with  Her  Majesty's  Government!" 

Is  General  Hay  ignorant  of  the  fact  that  in  IS-jo 
"Hie  treaty"  with  Waterboer  "  entered  into  by  SirB. 
D'Urban  in  1834  .  .  .  ceased  to  be  in  force?"  that  Sir 
George  Cathcart  "  declined  to  renew  it  in  favour  of 
the  existing  interest" — the  present  Chief  Waterboer — 
because  it  "would  bo  incompatible  with  the  Convention 
entered  into  with  the  Transvaal  emigrants,"  and  that, 
till  this  day,  no  fresh  treaty  was  ever  made  with 
Waterboer?  If  so,  lie  was  deplorably  ignorant  of  the 
duties  of  his  high  office ;  if  not,  in  what  words  are  we 
to  condemn  his  inexcusable  malversation  ? 

I  cannot  conclude  this  effort  to  prove  that  the 
Colonial  Government  had  no  right  to  interfere  in  the 
question  between  Waterboer  and  the  Free  State, 
Avithout  quoting  a  few  extracts  from  "  A  Despatch  of 
the   Right  Hon.   II.   Labouchere,   Secretary  of  State 

•  Vide  p  .15,  Cape  Town  Blue  Book,  No.  1, 1871. 


THE    RT.    HON.    H.    LABOUCHERE'S    POLICY.  255 

to  the  Colonies,  to  Sir  George  Grey,  High  Commis- 
sioner and  Governor  of  the  Cape  Colony,"  dated 
"  Downing  Street,  June  5th,  1857,"*  which  seem 
to  be  remarkably  apropos  at  the  point  to  which 
we  have  arrived  in  .  the  struggle  for  the  diamond 
fields. 

The  Secretary  of  State  thus  worthily  describes  the 
policy  of  recognizing  by  treaty  the  Orange  Free 
State  and  sister  Republic  as — 

"A  policy  thus  deliberately  adopted,  and  embodied,  moreover,  in 
treaties  which  it  is  our  duty  faithfully  to  observe  .  .   ." 

"The  independence  of  the  two  Republics  must  therefore  be 
scrupulously  respected  by  us,  not  only  for  the  consistency  in  our 
policy,  but  also  from  the  higher  motive  of  a  regard  for  our  treaty 
engagements  .  .  .  and  those  treaties  should  be  observed  not  only  in 
their  letter  but  in  their  spirit.  We  should  be  careful  to  respect  the 
territorial  limits  which  they  assign  to  the  Republics,  as  far  as  these  are 
ascertainable  according  to  the  fair  meaning  of  the  terms,  although 
they  fail  to  define  them  with  accuracy  ..." 

"  .  .  .  As  far  as  possible  avoid  mixing  yowrself  up  in  disputes  which 
may  arise  between  them  and  the  native  tribes  in  their  neighbourhood  ..." 

".  .  .  I  would  recapitulate  as  follows: — To  observe  strictly  the 
letter  and  the  spirit  of  the  treaties  into  which  we  have  entered  with 
the  neighbouring  States  ;  to  maintain  the  integrity  of  our  posses- 
sions on  the  confines  of  these  States,  but  to  avoid  any  extension  of  their 
limits,  to  which  they  may  justly  object  ;  and  to  forbear  from  mixing 
ourselves  up  with  the  affairs  of  the  native  tribes,  except  so  far  as  may  be 
clearly  indispensable  for  the  protection  of  Her  Majesty's  subjects." 

It  is  by  the  knowing  and  wilful  misapplication  of 
this  last  sentence  that  the  Colonial  Government  seeks 
to  justify  its  first  invasion,  and  subsequent  armed 
seizure  of  that  portion  of  the  Free  State  which  includes 
the  diamond  fields. 

After  what  we  have  already  seen,  is  it  not  evident, 

*  Vide  p.  104,  Blue  Book,  "Kaffir  Tribes." — London,  August,  1857. 


250  OUR   PAST   AND    PRESENT   FOREIGN    POLICY. 

is  it  not,  in  fact,  admitted  by  General  Hay  when  he 
naively  states,  in  his  despatch  ol  the  15th  of  September, 
1870,  that  Waterboer  had  applied  to  be  taken  over 
with  his  j^eople,  and  the  lands  belonging  to,  and  claimed, 
by  him,  by  the  Colonial  Government,  that  the  sole 
object,  the  real  motive  of  that  august  body  in  taking 
part  against  the  Free  State  was  to  get  hold  of  the 
longed-for  diamond  fields  ? 

The  extracts  last  quoted  are,  indeed,  models  of  a 
just,  an  honourable,  a  noble  policy  !  For  an  English- 
man to  compare  that  policy  with  this  of  the  present 
day  is  to  bring  anger  and  humiliation  upon  himself  if 
he  be  an  honest  man  !  Though  so  few  years  have 
elapsed,  yet  that  righteous  policy  seems  already  to 
belong  to  the  misty  recollections  of  the  distant,  dead 
past !  In  those  days  —but  yesterday  as  it  were — we 
still  possessed  statesmen — a  sense  of  national  honour  ! 
And  now  ?  We  truckle  and  submit  to  all  our  equals  in 
strength ;  we  have  come  to  hail  arbitration,  whenever 
we  are  threatened,  and  to  buy  off  our  assailant,  when- 
ever our  rights  are  called  in  question  ;  whilst  to  com- 
pensate for  the  contumely  and  contempt  with  which 
we  are  treated  in  spite  of  our  spiritless,  senseless  sub- 
mission to  the  strong,  and  the  anger  and  humiliation 
we  secretly  entertain  in  consequence,  we  do  not 
hesitate  to  rob  and  plunder,  even  to  make  war  upon 
any  small  State  or  nation  very  much  weaker  than  our- 
selves !  With  what  delightful  nonchalance  we  pay 
America  three  and  a  half  millions  for  what  we  never 
did  !  How  sweetly  we  turn  the  other  cheek  to  the 
smiter,  and  hand  over  San  Juan  with  our  water 
rights  !  With  what  prompt,  heroic  determination  we 
make  war  upon  Abyssinia,  Ashantee,  Bhootan,  or  the 


OUR    FOREIGN    POLICY.  257 

Chinese  Taipings.!  With  what  undaunted  valour  we 
blow  the  Kookas  from  the  muzzles  of  our  guns  !  How 
fiercely  we  hector  the  Government  of  the  Orange 
Free  State;  outrage  that  non-military  power  in 
violation  of  all  law  or  justice ;  despoil  it  of  its  dia- 
mond fields,  and  annex  them  to  ourselves ! 


258  A    CASE    b'OH    REPRISALS. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

Analysis  of  the  False  Evidence  by  which  the 
late  Colonial  Government  sought  to  Justify  its 
Support  of  WaterboeRj  its  Designs  on  the 
Diamond  Fields,  and  its  Isolation  of  the  Rights 
and  Territory  of  tile  Orange  Free  State. 

Illegal  Appointment  of  British  Magistrates  to  the  Diamond 
Fields. — General  Hay's  Despatches  Analyzed,  and  the 
Misrepresentations  Exposed  by  -which  the  British  Govern- 
ment WAS  DECEIVED. EARL  KiMBEBLEY'S  ORIGINAL  IDEA  OF   THE 

Slave-dealing  propensities  of  the  two  Republics. — Review 
of  General  Hay's  Official,  Illegal  and  Illogical  Support  of 
"Waterboer  :  His  FalseReports  to  EarlKimberley. — Genei:  a  l 
Hay  Libels  the  last  President  of  the  Free  State. — He 
makes  a  Diplomatic  Joke,  which  recoils  upon  himself. — 
Waterboer' s  Petition  to  become  a  British  Subject. — General 
Hay's  Mistatements  ix  Recommending  it. — Utterly  False 
Premises  on  •which  the  Act  is  based,  appointing  British 
Magistrates  to  toe  Diamond  Fields. 

Although,  as  pointed  out  in  our  last  Chapter,  the 
Orange  Free  State  would  have  been  perfectly  justified 
in  resisting  by  force  the  appointment  of  any  foreign 
magistrates  within  its  actual  or  claimed  boundaries; 
and  although,  as  against  the  Cape  Colony  alone,  fi 
would  certainly  have  done  so  with  a  fair  prosped  of 


THE    APPOINTMENT    OF    MAGISTRATES    ILLEGAL.  259 

success;  it  was  not  either  strong  or  foolish  enough  to 
accept  war  against  that  Colony,  hacked  up  and  sup- 
ported by  the  whole  power  of  Great  Britain. 

Consequently,  instead  of  defying  the  threatened 
invasion,  the  Government  of  the  Free  State  proceeded 
to  protest  against  that  proposed  act,  and  to  argue 
with  their  predetermined  foes,  Waterboer's  special 
pleaders,  the  Colonial  Government. 

We  have  seen  that  General  Hay  founded  his  autho- 
rity to  appoint  British  Magistrates  to  the  diamond 
fields,  upon  an  Act,  u  26  and  27  Victoria,  Cap. 
35."  Well,  he  grossly  misinterpreted  and  misapplied 
that  Act ! 

President  Brand,  in  his  reply  (dated  Bloemfonteiu, 
1st  October,  1870)  to  General  Hay's  hostile  despatch 
of  the  19th  ult.,  states*  : 

••  It:  is  a,  clear  general  principle  that  the  cognizance  and  punish- 
ment of  crimes  belong  to  the  Government  of  the  country  where  the 
•crime  was  committed ;  a.nd  that  it  never  teas  the  intention  of  the  Act 
-quoted  in  your  Excellency' §  letter  to  derogate  from  that  principle,  is  evident 
from  the  words  in  the  preamble,  and  section  1   of  the  Act, — '  And  not 

BETNG  WITHIN  THE  JURISDICTION  OF   ANY    CIVILIZED  GOVERNMENT,'  and 

from  section  4." 

General  Hay's  attempted  justification  is  thus  proved 
nugatory,  for  the  country  in  which  the  diamond  fields 
were  situated,  as  we  have  so  fully  shown,  was,  and  had 
heen  for  many  years,  actually  "  within  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  a  civilized  Government,"  that  of  *the  Free 
State.  Whether  General  Hay  chose  to  consider  that 
occupation  and  possession  legitimate  or  unrighteous 
does  not  afreet  the  case — it  was  a  fact. 


Vide  p.  25.  Cape  Town,  Bin.-  Book,  No.  1. 

s2 


260     THE    LOCALE   OF   GENERAL    HAY'S   MAGISTRATES 

The  exact  territory  then  known  as  diamondiferous, 
along  the  banks  of  the  Vaal  River,  and  to  which 
people  were  nocking  to  dig  for  diamonds,  had  been 
part  and  parcel  of  the  Free  State  for  about  thirteen 
rears,  mostly  by  rights  of  purchase  derived  from  the 
late  Captain  Cornelius  Kok ;  whilst,  nearer  to  the  line 
from  Ramah  via  David's  Graf  to  Platberg,  the  land  had 
belonged  to  the  Free  State  from  the  period  of  its- 
creation  in  1854. 

Pnicl  being  the  most  important  and  central  of  the 
diamond  fields  then  opened,  was  chosen  as  the  spot  to 
which  the  Government  of  the  State  appointed  its 
special  Magistrate  and  Commissioner,  Mr.  0.  J.  Truter. 
In  his  reply  to  General  Hay  above  quoted  from, 
President  Brand  thus  refers  to  that  subject : — 

"  As  it  was  necessary  for  the  preservation  of  order  and  regula- 
rity at  the  diamond  fields,  situate  in  the  district  of  Jacobsdal,  on  farms 
which  have  for  the  last  thirteen  years  been  enregistered  in  the  office  of  the 
Registrar  of  Deeds,  and  in  the  possession  and  occupation  of  our  people,  to 
have  a  functionary  on  the  spot,  I  appointed  Mr.  0.  J.  Truter  on  the 
6th  of  last  month." 

Hitherto  the  territory  at  and  around  Pniel  had  been 
subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Landdrost's  Court  es- 
tablished at  Jacobsdal.  Pniel  (a  considerable  tract  of 
land)  was  purchased  from  Captain  Cornelius  Kok  in 
1857,  by  the  Berlin  Missionary  Society,  as  we  proved 
in  Chapter  IX.  by  the  deposition  of  the  Rev.  C.  Wuras  ; 
that  sale  and  the  transfer  therewith  of  sovereign  or  ter- 
ritorial rights  (as  was  the  rule  in  all  such  transactions 
with  natives)  has  never  been  disputed  by  Watcrboer 
before  !  never  once  been  claimed  by  him  during  the 
quarter  century  that  Mission  Station  lias  been 
established  ! 

In  every  correct  argument  the  minor  premiss  must 


PROVED    TO   BE   WITHIN   FREE    STATE   JURISDICTION.    261 

•depend  on  the  major,  The  view,  conclusions,  and 
action  to  which  General  Hay's  19th  of  September 
despatch  process  of  inductive  ratiocination  led  him, 
may  be  thus  formally  defined  : 

Major  premiss  :  The  diamond  fields  belong  to  Water- 
boer,  a  semi-savage.  Where  British  subjects  congre- 
gate, "  not  being  within  the  jurisdiction  of  any 
civilized  Government,"  magistrates  may  be  appointed 
to  rule  over  them  by  Act  26  and  27  Victoria, 
•Cap.  35. 

Minor  premiss :  British  subjects  congregate  at  the 
diamond  fields. 

Conclusion :  Therefore  I  appoint  magistrates. 

Now,  as  General  Hay  himself  admits  the  bodily 
existence  of  Mr.  Commissioner  Truter,  and  states 
from  his  own  knowledge  that  he  knew  this  Free 
State  official  had  been  appointed  to  rule  over  the 
diamond  fields ;  and,  as  President  Brand  still  further 
declares  the  jurisdiction  of  his,  a  civilized  Government, 
•over  the  said  territory,  General  Hay's  major  premiss  is 
•destroyed.  His  logic  is,  indeed,  extraordinary ;  yet 
upon  it  the  Colonial  Government  acted,  and  proceeded, 
as  declared,  to  appoint  magistrates  where  those  of  the 
Free  State  already  existed  ! 

In  spite  of  the  documentary  evidence  (reviewed  in 
Chapter  X.)  which  President  Brand,  on  the  20th  Oct., 
1870,  supplied  to  the  Colonial  Government,  that  en- 
lightened body  persisted  in  the  course  of  policy  which 
it  had  deliberately  adopted  previous  to  seeing  the 
■evidence  on  the  part  of  the  Free  State  ! 

The  modus  operandi  decided  upon  was  very  simple: 
to  deny  everything  the  Free  State  alleged  ;  whilst 
.giving  to  all  Waterboer's  unsupported  assertions  an 


262    EXTENT  OF   THE  OFFH  LW.  CQBKESPONDEKCE. 

unquestioning  support — but  then  the  near  prize,  the 
diamond  fields,  was  presumably  great ! 

To  deal  with  the  whole  voluminous  mass  of  cor- 
respondence which  has  passed  between  the  Colonial 
and  Free  State  Governments  since  that  fatal  19th 
of  September;  to  analyze  and  criticise  seriatim,  as 
General  Hay's  wonderful  production  of  that  date  has 
been  treated,  the  subsequent  despatches  from  his  suc- 
cessors—equally illogical,  equally  full  of  the  grossest 
mistatements  and  garbled  quotations — and  which,  to 
this  time  (January,  1873),  have  not  even  jut  ceased. 
is  simply  impossible  in  this  work.  Already  the  cor- 
respondence fills  several  large  Blue  Books,  and  a 
termination  of  the  paper  warfare  seems  as  distant  as 
ever.  All  I  can  do  is,  to  expose  the  most  glaring  of 
the  Colonial  Government's  false  evidence;  to  take  up 
and  review  the  salient  points  and  reasons  on  which 
it  bases  its  different  acts  in  the  robbery  of  the  dia- 
mond fields. 

The  Pniel  diggings  are  situated  on  the  south,  or 
left  bank  of  the  Vaal  River ;  in  a  district  for  m any 
years,  as  previously  explained,  belonging  to  the  Free 
State.  Immediately  opposite,  on  the  other  side  of  the 
river,  are  the  older  Klip-Drift  diggings  (at  this  time 
worked  out).  This  latter  place,  not  being  within  the 
limits  of  the  Free  State,  but  on  ground  claimed  both 
by  Kaffirs,  Koranas,  Waterboer,  and  the  South  African 
Republic,  had,  towards  the  latter  part  of  1870,  become 
the  resort  of  the  "rowdy,"  or  disorderly  diggers. 
They  first  tried  to  start  a  sort  of  nondescript  self- 
government,  or  local  Republic;  then  after  General 
1  lav's  notification  of  the  appoinment  of  magistrates, 
strove  to  make  war  upon  both  the  South  African  and 


ADVENT    OF    ML'.    0AMPBELL.  26S 

Free  State  Republics  in  fulfilment  of  the  hostile 
instructions  to  British  subjects  therein  conveyed ;  and 
finally  accepted  a  Mr.  John  Campbell,  the  first  of  the 
magistrates  appointed  by  General  Hay,  and  who 
privately  arrived  at  Klip-Drift,  in  a  stealthy,  surrep- 
titious sort  of  way,  early  in  the  month  of  December, 
1870. 

For  several  months  Mr.  Campbell  did  nothing  at  all 
beyond  assuming  a  sort  of  scouting  post  (though, 
doubtless,  in  receipt  of  a  good  round  salary  from  Cape 
Town),  as  special  magistrate  over  those  who  chose  to 
recognize  him.  It  was  found  that  the  powers  he  came 
armed  with  (Cap.  35,  of  26  and  27  Victoria)  were 
not  sufficient,  and  so  he  could  not  open  courts  :  so  said 
rite  Colonial  Government,  later ;  but  the  truth  seems 
to  be,  that  he  first  of  all  felt  his  way  with  the  temper 
and  disposition  of  the  diggers,  and  ascertained  the 
position  and  feeling  of  the  people  of  the  surrounding 
States,  so  as  to  bo  able  to  judge  as  to  the  probable 
results  of  a  further  and  more  positive  assumption  of 
British  authority  and  jurisdiction. 

Injustice  to  this  gentleman,  I  must  state  that,  whilst 
lie  occupied  the  above  anomalous  position,  he  managed 
to  quash  several  armed  attacks  with  which  the  rowdies 
( >f  Klip-Drift,  incited  by  General  Hay's  despatches  of 
the  19th  September,  threatened  the  Transvaal  authori- 
ties at  Hebron,  though  it  is  very  doubtful  whether 
they  would  have  ever  dared  to  put  their  threats  into 
execution  even  if  left  unmolested. 

Having  received  power  from  Waterboer,  in  the  form 
of  a  commission,  to  exercise  authority  over  the  dia- 
mond-fields (over,  that  is  to  say,  territory  for  twenty- 
live  years  owned  by  Europeans,  for  thirteen  to  nineteen 


2G4  SOURCE  OF  MR.   Campbell's  authority. 

years  all  included  within  the  limits  and  jurisdiction  of 
the  Free  State,  and  never  in  the  history  of  the  world  in 
Waterboer's  possession) ;  and  having  also  received  the 
permission  of  Sir  Henry  Barkly,  the  new,  and  lately 
arrived,  Governor  and  High  Commissioner  of  the  Cape, 
in  succession  to  General  Hay,  who  rilled  those  offices 
temporarily, — Mr.  Campbell  began  to  assume  power, 
by  issuing  the  following  notice*  : — 

"Special  Magistrate's  Office,  Diamond  Fields, 
February  8th,  1871. 
"  Gentlemen, — I  beg  to  acquaint  you  that  I  am  now  duly  authorized 
and  empowered  to  levy  and  receive  all  licences  in  the  disputed  territory.  And 
I  hereby  warn  you  from  paying  said  licences,  or  in  any  way  being  a 
party  to  such  payments,  except  to  me,  as  the  legal  and  authorized 
party  within  this  territory,  or  to  the  Committee  of  Management  at 
Cawood's  Hope. 

"  I  have,  &c, 
(Signed)         "J.  Campbell,  Special  Magistrate. 
"  The  Committee  of  Management, 
"Cawood's  Hope." 

Who  "  duly  authorized  and  empowered  "  Mr.  Camp- 
bell ?  Why,  that  poor  savage,  that  head  of  a  wretched 
horde  of  200  very  ill-conditioned  half-castes,  Water- 
boer !  That  man  of  straw,  that  handy  puppet  put  up 
to  represent  the  territorial  right  to  the  diamond  fields, 
and  then,  by  the  already  known  and  arranged  dodge 
of  petitioning  for  British  protection,  and  offering  his 
territories  for  annexation  to  the  Cape  Colony,  to 
convey  to  it  the  diamond  fields  !  That  only  Waterbocr 
and  his  backers  "disputed"  the  "territory"  in  question;'' 
that  the  Free  State  had  not  any  dispute  about  it,  and 

*  Vide  p.  134,  Blue  Book,  "  Correspondence  respecting  the  affairs 
of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  London,  August  17th,  1871." 


THE    FREE    STATE    OUTRAGED.  265 

could  not  very  well  dispute  its  right  to  part  of  itself; 
and  that  Mr.  Campbell  was,  what  he  has  the  temerity  to 
term,  "duly  authorized  and  empowered  "  by  only  one  of 
the  tivo  alleged  parties  to  the  dispute,  by  only  the  claimant 
to  lands  actually  and  for  many  years  held  and  possessed  by  the 
other  party  ;"  these  are  all  facts  very  carefully  concealed! 
Sir  Henry  Barkly  in  a  despatch  to  Earl  Kimberley, 
dated  "  Bloemfontein,  O.F.S.,  March  8,  1871,*  admits 
the  principal  of  the  above  charges  : — 

"Having  received  my  permission  to  act  under  Waterbocr's  com- 
mission .  .  .  Mr.  Campbell  at^lengtli  judged  it  necessary  to  take 
steps  for  asserting  his  authority." 

Cawood's  Hope,  the  place  to  where  Waterbocr's 
special  magistrate  directed  his  first  manifesto,  had 
then  been  lately  populated  as  a  new  diamond  field. 
Being  within  twenty  miles  of  Pniel,  and  on  the  same 
side  of  the  river,  lower  down,  it  was  on  Free  State 
soil.  At  first  the  diggers  readily  admitted  the  rights  of  the 
Free  State,  and  paid  licences  to  its  commissioner ;  but 
after  the  publication  of  General  Hay's  notorious  19th  of 
September  despatch,  and  Mr.  Campbell's  manifesto  of 
8th  February,  being  mostly  British  subjects  from  the 
Colony,  they  obeyed  those  orders,  and  refused  pay- 
ment to  the  rightful  authorities.  They  even,  en- 
couraged thereto  by  Mr.  Campbell,  prepared  to  main- 
tain their  illegal  position  by  armed  force. 

If  the  Island  of  San  Juan  had  been  wholly  claimed  and 
occupied  by  Great  Britain,  and  the  Americans  claiming 
it  not  for  themselves,  but  for  some  Indian  Chief  who 
might  have  expressed  a  wish  to  place  it  under  their 


*   Vide  p.  132,  Blue  Book,  "  Correspondence  respecting  the  affairs  of 
the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  London,  August  17th,  1871." 


266  MK.    CAMPBELL     L-HItKATENS    INVASION. 

rule,  had  at  once  proceeded  to  appoint  their  magistrates 
to  govern  it,  pending  the  formation  and  decision  of  a 
court  of  arbitration,  proposed  by  them,  between  the 
puppet  Indian  Chief  and  ('real  Britain,  it  would  have 
been  in  principle  and  u  Law  a  case  exactly  analogous 
to  the  arbitrary  appointment  of  British  magistrates 
over  the  diamond  fields;  except  that,  in  the  latter 
instance,  there  existed  special  treaties  of  which  the  ac1 
was  a  deliberate  violation. 

Mr.  Campbell,  being  encouraged  to  such  a  course  b\ 
Sir  Henry  Barkly,  displayed  his  hand  still  further. 
Also,  on  the  8th  February,  he  issued  at  Klip  Drift  the 
following  notices  *: 

1.  ''Tenders  will  be  received  ....  for  the  supply  of  bucIi 
(jiiantities  of  mealies  or  Kafir  corn  as  may  be  required  for  the  use 
of  100  armed  and  mounted  police" 

2.  "  Tenders  will  be  received  for  the  hire  of  a  strong  room,  to  be 
used  as  a  lock-up,  as  also  another  to  be  used  as  a  gaol,  on  the  Vni>l 
aide  of  the  river." 

The  progress  from  this  point,  of  what  an  American 
would  call  "  manifest  destiny,"  was  rapid.  Fniel,  as 
we  have  said,  was  then  the  seat  of  Mr.  0.  J.  Truters 
Government;  but  the  "  100  armed  and  mounted 
police  "  were  already  on  their  way  from  the  Colony, 
and  eventually  turned  him  out,  taking-  possession  by 
armed  force,  of  that  distrfct  of  the  Free  State. 

Having  arrived  at  this  period  of  the  robbery  of  the 
diamondfields,  we  must  pause  for  a  while,  in  order  to 
observe  the  crafty  devices  and  utterly  false  statements 
by  which  the  British  Government  was  induced  to  give 
its  consent. 

*  Vide  p.  134,  Blue  Book,  "Correspondence  respecting  the  affaire 
of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  London.  17th  August,  1871". 


GENERAL   HAY  ^    FALSE    REPORTS 


267 


Quotations. 
The  first  misrepresentations 
were  convey  eel  in  a  despatch 
from  General  Hay  to  Earl 
Kimberley,  dated  "  Gape  Town, 
September  19,  1870" 

'•  o.  The  dispute  as  to  terri- 
torial rights  existed  long  before 
the  discovery  of  diamonds,  and 
the  Chief  Waterboer  (a)  Juts 
frequently  and  persistently  endea- 
voured to  induce  the  Free  State 
Government  to  submit  their  diffe- 
rences to  the  arbitration  of  Her 
Majesty's  High  Commissioner 
in  this  Colony.  .  .  .  This,  how- 
ever, they  were  unable  to  do, 
owing  to  the  Free  State  insisting 
upon  limiting  the  arbitration  to 
certain  lands  situated  on  the  right 
bank  of  the  Vaal  River,  while 
Waterboer's  claim  extended  to 
other  lands  situated  on  the  left 

bank  of  the  said   river 

Afterwards  I  ascertained  that 
he  '  (President  Brand)  '  had 
appointed  a  Commissioner  to  the 
diamond  fields,  and  (b)  assumed 
judicial  authority  over  the  disputed 
territory  ;  and  I  have,  therefore, 
addressed  a  further  communi- 
cation to  him,  and  deemed  it 
needful  to  issue  a  Government; 
notice,  warning  all  British  sub- 
jects against  aiding  and  abetting 
aggressions  upon  the  territories 
of  native  inhabitants." 


Eemarks. 
It  is  necessary  to  remember 
the  wording  of  Articles  1  and  2 
of  the  Treaty  or  Convention  of 
1854  (quoted  in  extenso,  Chapter 
III.),  and  the  interpretation  put 
thereon  by  the  Duke  of  New- 
castle, the  Et.  Hon.  H.  Labou- 
chere,  &c.  in  reviewing  these 
despatches. 

(a)  We  have  already  shown  (es- 
pecially pp.  107—110  Chapter  6) 
that  the  Free  State,  not  Water- 
boer, '•  has  frequently  and  persist- 
ently" proposed  arbitration  as  to 
territory  (the  Campbell  lands)  not 
actually  for  many  years  its  own . 
General  Hay  makes  no  distinc- 
ton,  and  would  have  it  appear  thai 
the  whole  territory  in  dispute  had 
been  so  "long  before  the  dis- 
covery of  diamonds,"  ignoring 
the  fact  that  he  was  (so  far  as  1 
can  ascertain)  the  first  to  claim  for 
Waterboer  the  line  from  Eamah,. 
via   David's    Graf,   to  Flatberg  I 

(b)  The  assertion  that  Presi- 
dent Brand  had  "  assumed 
judicial  authority"  over  what  we 
have  shown  by  a  mass  of  evi- 
dence had  been  under  his 
Government  from  thirteen  to  nine- 
teen years,  can  only  be  character- 
ised as  a  deliberate  false  state- 
ment. If  General  Hay  did 
not  know  the  truth,  it  was  his 
duty  to  have  investigated  the 
matter,  instead  of  passing  his 
judgment,  and  acting  upon  it,  on 
the  very  day  he  opened  the  ease, 


208 


GENERAL    HAYS    DIPLOMACY    CONTINUED. 


.  .  .  "  9.  The  people  of  West 
Griqua  land,  over  whom  Water- 
boer  is  the  Chief  (c)  have  long 
been  in  alliance  with  Her  Majesty1  s 
Government,  by  treaties  entered 
into  with  the  Governors  of  this 
Colony,  and  have  invariably 
abided  by  and  acted  up  to  their 
engagements.  (d)  They  are  a 
much  more  civilized  people  than 
most  other  tribes  inhabiting  this 
part  of  Africa,  and  their  Govern- 
mental institutions  and  laws 
arc  similar  to  and  based  upon 
those  of  this  Colony." 


(e)  10.  u  I  have  reason  to  believe 
that  these  people  ivill  immediately 
'petition  Her  Majesty  to  extend  her 
sovereignty  over  their  country,  and 
receive  them  as  British  subjects. 
Should  this  be  done,  and  should 
Her  Majesty  be  pleased  to 
accede  to  the  prayer,  I  appre- 
hend there  will  be  very  little,  if 
any,  difficulty  in  making  satis- 
factory arrangements  for  their 
future  Government,  and  they 
have  ample  resources  for  defray- 
ing the  costs  that  may  have  to 
be  incurred,  exclusive  of  the  in- 
crease   that    must    arise     from 


and  before  hearing  a  word  from 
the  Free  State  in  defence  ! 

(c.)  This  statement,  also,  I  can 
only  in  honesty  term  a  wilful 
falsehood.  I  have  already  shown 
(p.  81,  Chapter  IV.)  that  the  treaty 
with  the  late  A.  Waterboer  ex- 
pired when  that  chief  died  in 
1852,  and  the  renewal  with  the 
present  Waterboer,  was  most 
distinctly  refused.  It  was  never 
renewed.  To  what  "  Treaties," 
and  to  which  "  Governors"  does 
General  Hay  refer  ? 

(d)  Will  General  Hay  compare 
this  with  his  own  words,  "  un- 
tutored people  such  as  Waterboer 
and  the  members  of  his  "  Coun- 
cil," in  his  "despatch to  President 
Brand,  October   15th,  1870  ?" 

(e)  Here  we  have  the  true 
cause  of  the  support  of  Water- 
boer ! 

There  seems  an  air  of  duplicity 
about  this  statement.  Why  does 
not  General  II av  give  his  "rea- 
son," as  he  did  in  his  despatch 
to  President  Brand,  15th  Septem- 
ber, 1870,  when  he  declared 
that  he  was  "in  communication 
with  Waterboer  on  the  subject  ?" 
That  abhorrent  system  of  sup- 
pressio  veri suggestio  falsi  perme- 
ates this  concluding  paragraph  ! 
The  diamond  fields,  by  implica- 
tion, are  treated  as  part  of 
"their  country" — the  Griquas. 
It  is  then  pretended  that  "  they 
have  ample  resources"  so  as  to 
prevent  Ministers  at  home  dread- 


APPROVES."  269^ 

the  recently  discovered  minerals      ing  any  expense.  What  resources, 

underlying  their  soil.  except  of  bad  language,  or  what 

"  I  have,  &c .,  they  hoped  to  steal  from  the  Free 

"  (Signed)        C.  Hay.  State  diamond  fields,  had  those 

Lieut.-Gen.,    Lieut. -Governor      Griquas  ?    The  actual  possession 

administering  the  Government."*      of  that  region  by  the  Free  State 

is  carefully  concealed.  Nor  is  it 
stated  that  diamonds  alone  had 
caused  the  Colonial  Government 
to  listen  to  Waterboer. 

On  the  6th  November,  1870,  Earl  Kimberley 
approved  the  action  which  I  have  described  as  taken 
by  General  Hay  by  his  arrogant,  aggressive,  illogical, 
and  biassed  despatches  of  the  19th  of  September.  Earl 
Kimberley  wrote : 

"I  approve  of  the  communications  which  you  addressed  to  the 
Presidents  of  the  Republics,  and  of  the  official  notice  which  you 
issued  on  the  subject." 

Judging  by  late  events,  how  remarkably  different 
his  Lordship's  tone  and  language  would  have  been 
had  the  Transatlantic  " Republic"  been  the  one 
concerned ! 

Let  us  examine  now  the  reasons  (and  the  value 
thereof)  upon  which  Earl  Kimberley  bases  his  conclusion 
and  approval. 

In  a  despatch,  dated  "  Downing  Street,  November 
17,  1870,"  conveying  instructions  to  Sir  Henry 
Barkly,  preparatory  to  his  departure  to  assume  the 
Governorship  of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  the  Secre- 
tary of  State  repeats  his  approval  of  General  Hay's 


*  Vide    pp.    36-37,    Blue   Book,    "  Correspondence    respecting   the 
affairs  of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  August  17,  1871." 


270  KARL    KIMBEKLEY?.S    RKA.SONS. 

action    towards   the    South    African     and    Free  State 
Republics 

"Kelative  to  the  assertion  of  their  claims  to   rHE  lands  <>!'  the 
'Chief  Waterboeb  !  "  * 


V 


•evidently   having     boon    deceived    by,   and    actual 

believing",  General  Hay's  mistatement  that  the 
diamond  fields  were  "  the  lands  of  Waterboer!"  and 
that  the  Free  State,  sinee  the  discovery  of  the  pre- 
vious stones,  instead  of,  as  the  fact  existed,  having 
been  actually  in  possession  of  the  ground  for  many 
years,  had  lately  put  forth  u  claims  "  to  it ! 

But,  worse  than  all,   as  a  specimen  of  the  high  pro- 
ficiency in  knowledge  of  foreign  peoples  and  British 
^dependencies  possessed  by  the   present  Secretary  of 
State  for  the   Colonies,  is  the  reason  he  gives  for  his 
judgment,*  viz.  : — 

"Her  Majesty's  Government  would  see  with  great  dissatisfac- 
tion any  encroachment  on  the  Griqua  territory  by  those  Republics, 

WHICH    "WOEXD    OPEN    TO   THE   EOEES    AN    EXTENDED    FIELD    FOE    THEIR 

^lave-dealing  operations  (!),  and prohdbly  had  to  much  oppression  of 

the  natives  and. disturbance  of  the  peace." 

So  far  as  the  ( )range  Free  State  is  concerned,  a 
more  ignorant,  utterly  and  totally  unfounded  slander 
was  never  uttered  against  a  nation.  Afterwards, 
when  this  or  a  similar  effusion  of  Earl  Kimberley's 
ideas  became  publicly  known,  he  had  the  pleasure  of 
very  completely  retracting  the  same. 

Still,  that,  we  see,  wns  his  reason  for  approving  the 
hostile,  illegal,  and  unrighteous  course  of  bullying  and 
robbery  initiated  against  the  Free  State  by  General 
Hay  ! __ 

*  Vide  p.  65,  Blue  Book,  "  Correspondence  respecting  the  affaire  of 
the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,"  London,  17th  August.  1871. 


KARL   Iy1M1;KKLKY'>    instructions.  271 

With  regard  to  Waterboers  expected  application  to 
have  his  territory  (including,  of  course,  the  Free 
State  diamond  fields)  taken  under  British  sovereignty, 
Karl  Kimherley's  instructions  to  Sir  Henry  Barkly 
were  : — 

'•  Her  Majesty's  Government  have  no  wish  (1),  if  it  can  be  avoid ed, 
to  extend  the  South  African  Colonies;  (2)  but  the  case  might  be 
altered  if  that  Colony  should  be  willing  to  take  upon  itself  the  fall  responsi- 
bilities of  Government,  with  the  burden  of  'maintaining  the  force  necessary 
to  keep  order  amongst  the  native  tribes ;  (3)  provided  that  the  white 
immigrants  concurred  with  the  natives  in  desiring  that  the  Griqua  terri- 
tory should  be  united  to  thr  Cape  Colony.  You  will,  however,  of  course, 
in  no  case  take  any  steps  to  annex  this  territory,  or  to  pledge  Her 
Majesty's  Government  to  its  annexation,  without  instructions  from 
home." 

After  this  intimation,  of  course,  it  became  the 
policy  of  the  Colonial  Government  to  make  matters 
appear  (1)  so  that  the  extension  of  the  South  African 
Colonies  could  not  u  he  avoided  f  (2)  that  the  Colon  v 
would  be  willing  to  undertake  the  ■"  full  responsi- 
bilities of  Government,"  etc. ;  (3)  and  that  the 
"white  immigrants,"  the  diggers,  united  with  " the 
natives  "  (what  natives  ?  I  never  found  any  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  the  diamond  fields,  except  Free 
State  farmers)  "  in  desiring  "  annexation  to  the  Cape 
<  olony.  We  shall  see,  by  and  by,  how  Sir  H.  Barkly 
earned  out  this  policy. 

( )f  course,  as  General  Hay  and  Sir  H.  Barkly, 
successively,  in  the  position  of  head  of  the  Colonial 
Government,  signed  all  the  despatches,  I  blame  and 
attack  them,  wherever  necessary,  although  the  whole 
of  their  colleagues,  being  better  acquainted  with  the 
history  and  politics  of  the  country  of  which  they  were 
old   residents — and  more  especially  Mr.  Southey,  the 


272       GENERAL    Il.w's    PARTIZANSHIP   ILLUSTRATED. 

Colonial  Secretary — were  equally  responsible,  and  far 
more  deserving  of  censure. 

On  the  27th  October,  1870,  the  Government  of  the 
Orange  Free  State  sent  a  formal  protest  to  Her 
Majesty's  Government  against  General  Hay's  appoint- 
ment of  magistrates  "  to  a  line  west  of  Ramah  to 
Platberg." 

In  his  despatch,  containing  the  protest,  to  General 
Hay,  President  Brand  very  accurately  refers  to  the 
former's  hostile  and  aggressive  conduct  in  these 
words*  : — 

"Before  receiving  the  answer  from  our  Government,  your 
Excellency,  in  your  letter  of  the  19th  ultimo,  upon  the  i  x-pabte 
statement  of  the  Chief  Waterboer,  expressed  and  published  in  the  Cape 
Government  Gazette  of  the  20th,  an  opinion  adverse  to  the  claim  of 
the  Orange  Free  State,  and  stigmatized  it  as  t°n  'unjustifiable  en- 
croachment '  upon  his  (Waterboer's)  just  rights. 

"  Before  Her  Majesty's  Government  has  decided  upon  the  Chief 
Waterboer's  application,  and  the  protest  of  the  Orange  Free  State 
against  it,  your  Excellency  sides  with  the  Chief  Waterboer  and 
against  the  Government  of  the  Orange  Free  State." 

In  a  desvwtch,  dated  "Cape  Town,  November  12, 
1870,"  General  Hay  replies  to  President  Brand,  and  in 
defending  the  course  he  had  taken  makes  the  following 
mistatements : — 

Extracts  from  Despatch: .  Remarks  thereon. 

*  "  It  appears  to  me  that  your  "Firstly."  It  is  untrue  that  the 

Honour  has  scarcely  given  due  Free  State  Government  issued  a 

consideration  to  the  circumstances  proclamation  about  the  land  in 

which  rendered  action  on  my  part  question  ;  the  only  proclamation 

necessary,  viz.  : —  issued  by  it  concerned  the  Camp- 

Firstly,  That  you  had  ....  bell  lands.     In  the  protest  above 

proclaimed  the  intention  of  your  Go-  referred  to,  in  President  Brand's 


*  Vide  p.  69,  Blue  Book,  "  Correspondence  respecting  the  affairs  of  the 
Oape  of  Good  Hope,"  London,  August  17th,  1871 


GENERAL   HAY'S    MISTATEMENTS   AGAiX. 


273 


vernmcnt  to  take  forcible  possession 
of  an  extensive  tract  of  country, 
previously,  from  time  immemorial, 
in  the  occupation  of  native  abori- 
gines, who  do  not  appear  by  any 
act  of  theirs  to  have  divested 
themselves  in  favour  of  the  Free 
State  of  their  rights  to  the  same. 


' *  Secondly.  That  a  large  num- 
ber of  British  subjects  were  at  the 
time,  with  the  consent  of  the  said 
natives,  resident  within  the  limits 
of  that  tract  of  country,  and  were 
in  danger  of  being  compelled 
by  the  Free  State  Government, 
tacitly  at  least,  to  acknowledge 
that  its  right  to  the  territory  had 
been  established,  and  of  becoming 
parties  to  the  forcible  subjection 
of  the  country  to  the  jurisdiction 
of  that  Government ;  and, 


"  Thirdly.  That  Waterboer  had 
•appealed  to  me  against  your  pro- 
ceedings, and  notified  his  inten- 
tion of  appealing  to  Her  Majesty 
the  Queen.  .  .  . 

0)  "  15.  The  line  so  defined  by 
Adam  Kok  is  that  now  known  as 
theVetberg  line,  but  it  is  nowhere 
shown  (and  Waterboer  has  always 
denied)  that  Waterboer  was  a  party 
to  that  definition,  or  ever  expressed 
his  concurrence  in  it,  the  only 
party  shown  to  have  been  privy  to  it 
being  Adam  Kok%  on  the  one  hand, 


words,  this  "  '  tract  of  country,'  si- 
tuatedto  the  south  of  the  Vaal  River, 
hasbeenin  the  undisturbed  possession 
and  occupation  of  burghers  of  the 
Orange  Free  State  for  the  last 
20  years!"  No  " native  abori- 
gines" exist  therein;  they  were 
exterminated  by  General  Hay's 
friends,  the  Griquas  (see  p.  24  to 
28,  Chapter  II.),  of  whose  history, 
however,  he  appears  to  be  abso- 
lutely ignorant ! 

"Secondly."  How  these  abori- 
ginal "natives,"  who  had  been 
extinct  for  50  years,  could  have 
given  their  "consent,"  General 
Hay  does  not  explain.  I,  with 
many  hundreds  of  diggers,  was 
"  resident  within  that  tract  of 
country;"  I  did  not  see  one 
Griqua  inhabitant  (if  General 
Hay  thinks  they  are  aborigines), 
but  I  did  see  the  old  dwellings 
of  the  Free  State  farmers,  and  did 
enjoy  the  protection  of  the  Free 
State  officials,  by  whose  "con- 
sent" we  were  there ! 

"  Thirdly"  We  have  already 
seen,  by  the  Convention  of  1854. 
&c,  that  General  Hay  had  no 
right  to  interfere. 

(a)  By  this  tissue  of  falsehoods 
does  General  Hay  seek  to  dispose 
of  theVetberg  line !  TheVetberg 
treaty  itself  declares  Adam  and 
Cornelius  Kok,  Waterboer  and 
Jan  Bloem,  as  well  as  the  Free 
State  Government,  to  have  been 
parties  thereto.  Whilst  we  have 
seen    that  Waterboer   and    his 


2U 


GENERA  L    II  \Y  s    FALSE    REPORTS. 


"»</  the  Orange  Free  State  on  tlie 
other.  How  such  a  demarcation 
can  be  held  to  have  bound  Water- 


boer,  I  am  at  a  loss  to  conceive. 


councillors  were  actually  presen 
during  the  five  or  six  days  th< 
meeting  to  mako  the  line  lasted  ; 
that  they  saw  the  treaty  written, 
and  never,  till  the  present  time,  ob- 
jected!  (See  p.  82, Chapter  IV,  and 
Chapter VII,  throughout.) 

In  his  despatch  to  Earl  Kimberley,  dated  "  Cape 
Town,  November  18,  1870,"  transmitting  the  protest 
of  the  Free  State  Government,  General  Hav  makes 


the  following  mistatements  :- 

Extracts  from  Despatch. 
*"  3.  With  regard  to  the  as- 
sertion '•  that  the  portion  of  ter- 
ritory in  question  has  been  so 
long.  (•  20  years')  occupied  b}' 
burghers  of  the  Orange  Free 
State  by  virtue  of  British  land 
certificates,  I  -have  reason  to  be- 
lieve that  the  facts  are  these :  {a) 
A  very  few  of  such  certificates 
were  in  fact,  I  believe,  issued 
provisionally  by  the  British  Re- 
sident  before  the  abandonment 
of  the  Sovereignty.  Immediately 
upon  its  coming  to  the  notice 
of    the     Chief  Waterboer     (b), 

WHO  CLAIMED  AS  IIIS  THE  TERRI- 
TORY WITHIN  WHICH  THESE  CER- 
TIFICATES    WERE    ISSUED,     he     TC- 

monstrated  to  the  High  Com- 
missioner and  to  Major  Warden 
in  person,  who  was  the  British 
Resident  who  had  issued  the 
certificates.  Major  Warden  ac- 
knowledged that  it  was  by  mistake 


Remarks  Thereon. 

(a)  General  Hay  seems  to 
have  queer  ideas ;  so  what  he 
considers  "a  very  Jew  "  land  cer- 
tificates for  farms  averaging  about 
100  square  miles  each  I  cannot 
tell,  but  I  can  state  that  33  such 
f arms  with  British  land  certificates 
are  cut  off  from  the  Free  State  by 
the  line  he  so  unjustly  claimed 
for  Waterboer  from  Ramah  via 
David's  Graf  to  Platberg  ! 

(b)  That  Waterboer  then 
"  claimed "  as  his  the  territory 
within  which  those  certificates 
were  issued  "  is  a  most  glaring, 
unmitigated  false  statement  !  (See 
pp.  74  to  80,  Chapter  IV.)  The 
exact  words  of  the  late  A.  Water- 
boer, written  in  1850,  were,  "  My 
territory  situated  between  the 

MoDDER     AND     BLACK    (ORANGE] 

rivers  has    lately    been    taken 
possession  of  by  the  British  Re- 


sident."    Th 


Albania,  and 


*  Vide  p.  67,  Blue  Book,   "  Correspondence  respecting 
of  theOape  of  Good  Hope/' — London,  August  17.  L871. 


the    affairs 


HOW    II.    M.     GOVERNMENT    WAS    DECEIVED. 


27; 


i  o 


and  in  ignorance  of  Watc-rloer* * 
boundaries,  that  he  had  issued  these 
certificates,  and  (c)  those  certifi- 
cates were  never,  in  fact,  con- 
iirmedby  the  High  Commissioner- 
While  the  question  was  still 
ponding,  the  abandonment  of  the 
►Sovereignty  took  place,  and  the 
Free  State  took  over  the  dispute 
as  an  actually  pending  matter. 

(cl)  "4.  By  far  the  greater 
portion  of  the  territory  now 
claimed  by  the  Free  State  in  the 
protest  now  forwarded,  as  having 
been  in  the  possession  of  their 
burghers,    appears    to    have   been 

APPROPRIATED   AND    DISPOSED     OF 

by  the  Free  State  Government 
subsequently  to  the  abandonment 
of  the  Sovereignty,  and  not  while 
the  territory  of  the  Free  State  was 
under  British  control. 


(e)  "5.  And,  instead  of  the 
occupation  having  been  undis- 
turbed, there  is  no  question  whatever 
but  that  the  Griqua  Chief  Water- 
boer,  whose  undisputed  terri- 
tory IT  CERTAINLY  ONCE  WAS, 
and  who  by  no  act  of  his  has  ever 
dispossessed  himself  of  it,  has 
unceasingly  protested  against  that 
occupation.     .     .     . 


had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with 
the  territory  now  in  question. 
which  all  lies  north  of  the  Modder, 
between  that  river  and  the  YaaL 
whilst,  in  1855,  by  the  Vetberg 
line,  two  and  a  half  of  the  British 
land  certificate  farms  were  alone. 
and  for  the  first  time,  cut  off  from 
the  Free  State  and  found  to  be 
within  Albania ! 

(c)  As  a  fact,  the  British  land 
certificates  never  were  withdrawn, 
and  to  this  day,  for  20  years  have 
remained  in  force! 

(d)  What  General  Hay  terms 
"  territory  now  claimed,"  we  have 
seen  was  owned  and  claimed  03* 
the  Free  State  for  periods  vary- 
ing from  12  to  20  years!  It  is 
quite  false  to  say  the  Government 
1 1 appropriated"  or  "disposed  " 
of  those  lands.  Every  foot  of 
the  whole  143  farms  thereon 
was  bought  and  paid  for,  during 
the  past  40  years,  partly  by  those 
who  have  been  since  1854  Free 
State  farmers,  partly  by  their  Go- 
vernment. 

(e)  That  this  "undisputed 
territory  "  was  ever,  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  world,  for  even  one 
day,  Waterboer's,  or  in  his  pos- 
session, is  grossly  and  utterry 
untrue !  He  could  not  dispossess 
himself  of  that  which,  as  I 
have  repeatedly  shown,  he  never 
possessed.  He  never,  until  Mr. 
David  Arnot's  appearance,  in 
1863 — 4,  "protested  against  that 
occupation." 

T   2 


27G       SUMMARY   OF   GENERAL    II ay's    MISTATEMENTS. 

With  regard  to  this  last  reviewed  despatch  of 
General  Hay's,  T  desire  most  particularly  to  call 
attention  to  the  gross  ignorance  or  wilful  misrepresen- 
tation it  displays  upon  the  well-known  history  of  the 
country  and  its  geography. 

1. — TheGriquas  he  terms  "native  aborigines,"' where- 
as they  are  only  emigrants  of  fifty  years1  standing. 

2. — He  confounds  the  territory  now  claimed  by  him 
for  Waterboer,  within  a  line  from  Ramah  via  David's  Graf 
to  Platberg,  with  what  the  late  A.  Waterboer  claimed 
from  Major  Warden  in  1850,  the  land  at  the  confluence 
of  the  Vaal  and  Orange  rivers,  since  known  as  Albania  ! 

8. — He  takes  sides  in  the  matter,  and  passes  judg- 
ment, when  he  displays  total  ignorance  of  the  fact  that 
the  territory  "  between  the  Modeler  and  Black  [or  Orange) 
rivers "  is  Albania,  and  is  not  identical  with  the 
territory  claimed,  which  is  north  of  the  Modder, 
(whilst  the  former  is  south  of  it,)  and  is  between  the 
Modder  and  Vaal  rivers  and  his  line  from  Ramah  via 
David's  Graf  to  Platberg. 

4. — He  also  seems  to  believe,  and  at  all  events 
declares,  that  the  land  in  question  "  certainly  once  was 
Waterboer  s  undisputed  territory ;"  whereas,  as  we  have 
seen  throughout  this  work,  it  was  every  foot  bought 
from  the  Bushmen  Chiefs,  David  Dantzer  and  Mandor, 
from  the  Griqua  Captains,  Adam  and  Cornelius  Kok ; 
never  a  particle  of  ground  north  of  the  Modder  River,  or 
between  that  and  the  Vaal  River,  having  been  even 
nominally  owned  by  Waterboer  or  under  his  jurisdic- 
tion! 

And  it  is  upon  such  false  statements  that  the  British 
Government  were  deluded — induced  to  takeWaterbocr's 
part,  and  rob  the  Free  State  of  its  diamond  fields  ! 


FURTHER    FALSE    STATEMENTS. 


277 


In  another  despatch  to  Earl  Kimberley,  of  the 
same  date  as  that  just  reviewed,  General  Hay  makes 
the  further  false  statement  here  following  : — 

Kemarks  Thereon. 

(a)  Is  General  Hay  ignorant 
of  the  fact,  or  does  he  pervert  it, 
that  Cornelius  Koh  governed  the 
Campbell  lands  till  1857,  when 
he  made  them  over  to  AdamKolc, 
who  sold  them  to  the  Free  State 
in  1861  ?  (See  Chapter  VII.) 

(b)  Here  is  another  most  gross 
and  unpardonable  misstatement/  Is 
General  Hay  really  or  wilfully 
ignorant  of  the  fact  that  ' '  at  the 
time"  he  refers  to,  those  "several 
thousand  British  subjects  "  were 
not  "within"  the  Campbell  lands; 
that  the  diamond  fields,  at  which 
they  then  and  afterwards  resorted , 
were  not  on  the  Campbell  lands  ? 
that  the  Campbell  lands  do  not 
extend  east  of  the  Hart's  River ; 
whilst  all  the  diggers  and  diggings 
were  east  of  that  river,  along  the 
banks  of  the  Vaal  (See  all  our 
diagrams)  ?  that  there  did  not 
exist  any  "native  inhabitants  "  at 
or  near  the  diamond  fields  to  ej  ect  ? 


EXTEACTS   FROM    DESPATCH. 

*  "The Campbell  lands  .  . 
hitherto  and  still  in  possession  of 
natives,  having  a  Government  of 
their  own  (a),  which  Govern- 
ment HAS  BEEN  NO  PARTY  TO  THE 
ALIENATION  OF  THE  SOIL  IN  FA- 
VOUR of  the  Free    State    (b), 

AND     WITHIN    WHICH    TERRITORY, 

at  the  time  of  the  Free  State 
Government  issuing  its  procla- 
mation professing  to  take  forcible 
possession  thereof,  and  warning 
all  persons  to  submit  to  its  juris- 
diction,    THERE     WERE     SEVERAL 

thousand  British  subjects  de- 
voting themselves,  with  the  con- 
sent of  the  natives,  to  a  search 
for  diamonds,  and  otherwise  oc- 
cupied in  legitimate  and  peace- 
able pursuits,  who  would  of  ne- 
cessity have  been  compelled  to 
have  aided  the  Orange  Free  State 
in  forcibly  ejecting  the  native 
inhabitants  therefrom,  had  I  not 
interfered  to  prevent  it." 


So  much  for  General  Hay's  attempted  justification 
of  his  support  of  Waterboer  and  appointment  of 
British  magistrates. 

The  Free  State  only  claims  the  Campbell  lands  by 
right  of  purchase.  In  order  to  invalidate  this  right 
in  the  eyes  of  the  British  Government,  General  Hay 


#  Vide  p.  74,  Blue  Book,  "  Correspondence  respecting  the  affairs  of  the 
Ca  pe  of  Good  Hope,"— London,  August  17,  1871. 


•278 


MORE    FALSE    EVIDENT  E. 


makes  the  following  defamatory  accusation  against  the 

former  President  of  the  Orange  Free  State,  who  made 
the  purchase : — 


It  appears  to  me  to  be  not 
at  all  unreasonable  to  conclude, 
from  the  evidence  of  Harvey, 
that  he  added  '  the  lands  of  the 
late  Cornelius  Kok  '  to  the  sale, 
in  order  to  relieve  himself  of  the 
responsibility  in  which  he  was 
involved  by  his  undertaking  to 
obtain  £4000  (a),  and  that  the 
President  of  the  Free  State  allowed 
those  words  to  be  inserted  in  the 
deed,  with  a  knowledge  that  they 
were  not  justified  by  the  power 
under  which  Harvey  acted  .  . 
calculating  upon  the  ability  of 
his  Government  to  eject  the 
natives  whenever  it  should  feel 
disposed  to  do  so." 


[a)  Perhaps  General  Hay 
never  hoard  the  «  Id  legal  axiom, 
"  Omnia  preswrmntur  rite  esse 
acta,1''  and  does  not  know  (as 
President  Brand  well  observed 
at  a  future  period  of  the  contro- 
versy) that,  as  sound  and  clear 
general  principles  of  jurispru- 
dence, fraud  and  forgery  are  never 
presumed,  but  must  be  clearly 
proved.  Perhaps  those  who  have 
read  Chapters  5,  7,  and  9  of  this 
work  may  have  a  different  opin- 
ion to  General  Hay  of  the  deed 
of  sale  and  other  documentary 
evidence,  not  one  iota  of  which 
has  ever  yet  been  refuted  or  dis- 
proved by  Waterboer  and  Co  ! 


From  what  we  have  seen  of  General  Hay's  de- 
spatches to  Earl  Kimberley,  and  the  lamentable  igno- 
rance displayed  as  to  the  history  and  geography  of 
the  country,  as  well  as  of  the  merits  of  the  imbroglio 
fostered  by  him  between  Waterboer  and  the  Free 
State,  there  is  but  little  doubt  that  Mr.  Southey,  the 
Colonial  Secretary,  whose  ill-will  to  the  Free  State  is 
well-known,  was  the  actual  manager  and  concocter  of 
the  controversy.  This  view  is  confirmed  by  the 
following  little  anecdote,  related  to  me  by  President 
Brand  himself. 

In  order  to  try  and  arrange  the  difficulty  and  explain 
the  rights  of  the  Free  State,  the  Government  and 
Parliament    authorized     President    Brand     and    Mr. 


THE    BITEK   BITTEN.  279 

Charles  W.  Hutton,  member  of  the  legislature,  to  visit 
Cape  Town  and  negotiate  with  the  Colonial  autho- 
rities. At  one  of  the  consequent  interviews  at  Cape 
Town,  President  Brand  referred  to  the  already  volu- 
minous correspondence,  mentioning*  the  fact  that  one 
despatch  alone  contained  fifty-four  paragraphs,  besides 
annexures. 

"  Ah,"  said  General  Ha)',  "  it  must  be  a  bad  ease 
that  requires  so  much  pleading." 

"But  it  is  your  own  despatch,  General,"  observed 
rthe  President. 

And  so,  in  fact,  it  was ;  written,  no  doubt,  by  Mr. 
Southey,  and  merely  signed,  it  seems  likely  without 
perusal,  by  General  Hay. 

As  a  sample  of  the  premises  on  which  the  arguments 
are  based  in  that  formidable  and  verbose,  but  worth- 
less document,  we  select  two  examples  for  quotation  : — 

"  .  .  .  To  begin  with  the  year  1834  ....  at  that  time 
the  Gbriquas  were  one  people,  and  their  aehnotvledged  chief  teas  the  late 
Audries  Waterloo  r,  father  of  the  present  Chief.     .     .     ." 

The  gross  inaccuracy  of  this  statement  must  he 
•clear  to  those  who  have  read  Chapters  II.  and  ATI.  of 
this  work.  Bam  Kok  was  then  the  paramount  Griqua 
<Chicf,  and  we  have  seen  that  lie  appointed  (about 
181(3)  "  Kort  "  Adam  Kok  as  Chief  of  Griqua  Town, 
and  .Cornelius  Kok  as  Chief  of  Campbell;  AVaterboer 
(a  former  Achterrijder  of  Adam  Kok's)  being  soon 
after  appointed  to  a  position  as  magistrate  by  "  Kort " 
Adam  Kok,  and  eventually  appointed  by  Dam  Kok  as 
Chief  of  Griqua  Town  only.  He  never  at  any  future 
.time  exercised,  authority  over  the  Campbell  or  Philip- 
polis  Griquas. 


280    GENERAL    HAY'S    MISREPRESENTATIONS    CONTINUED. 

The  second  mistatement  deals  with  events  sub- 
sequent to  1848  : — 

"  A.  Waterboer  and  his  tribe  were  in  undisputed  possession  of 
the  land  bounded  on  the  south  by  the  Orange  Eiver,  from  Ramah 
westward  to  Kheis,  on  the  east  hytlie  line  from  Ramah  to  David's  Graf, 
common  with  them  and  A.  Kotts  Griquas  ;  thence  northward  to  Platberg, 
and  thence  by  a  line  fixod  by  treaty  with  Mahura,  and  terminating 
at  Kheis  aforesaid." 

The  utter  falseness  of  this  boundary  claimed  by 
General  Hay  for  Waterboer  for  the  first  time  in  the 
history  of  the  country  has  already  been  so  frequently 
exposed  in  these  pages  as  to  require  no  further  com- 
ment. Anyone  who  has  travelled,  as  I  have  done, 
over  many  of  the  143  Free  State  farms  it  cuts  off. 
who  has  seen  the  ancient  appearance  of  the  farm- 
houses (some  of  them  built  thirty  years  and  more),  and 
has  conversed  with  the  inhabitants  on  the  subject, 
would  experience  as  much  difficulty  as  I  do  in  mode- 
rating the  expressions  with  which  to  characterize 
General  Hay's  false  testimony. 

In  a  despatch,  dated  "  Cape  Town,  November  19, 
1870,"  General  Hay  transmits,  and  recommends  to 
Earl  Kimberley's  "  favourable  consideration,"  the 
long-promised  and  exj>ected  "  petition"  of  Waterboer 
to  Her  Majesty,  praying  to  become,  with  his  people, 
British  subjects ;  and  praying  most  particularly,  and 
above  all,  that  "  Griqualand  West,"  with  the  diamond' 
fields,  may  be  proclaimed  British  territory. 

The  "  petition "  is  to  be  found  at  page  8<S, 
Blue  Book,  "  Correspondence  respecting  the  affairs  of 
the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,"  London,  August  17th, 
1871  ;  but  such  an  ungrammatical  tissue  of  menda- 
city  I   have  decided   not    to    encumber   these  pages 


FURTHER   MISTATEMENTS.  281 

with,  more  especially  as  whatever  evidence  is 
therein  adduced  in  support  of  Watorboer's  claim,  has 
already  been  criticized  at  length  and  fully  disposed  of 
in  Chapters  VI.,  VIII.,  and  IX.  The  whole  thing  has 
evidently  been  concocted  by  Mr.  David  Arnot,  and 
others,  for  Waterboer.  From  the  earliest  period  of 
Griqua  history,  every  event  has  been  })erverted  and 
misrepresented  in  the  most  shameless,  transparent 
manner,  in  order  to  suit  the  compiler's  own  fraudulent 
ends,  and  make  out  a  claim  for  Waterboer  to  the 
diamond  fields. 

In  recommending  this  precious  mass  of  false  evi- 
dence and  fabrication,  General  Hay  reiterates  his* 
fallacies  and  mistatements,*Lviz. : — 

That  "many  thousands  of  British  subjects  have  emigrated 
thither  .  .  .  within  Griqua  land  .  .  .  and  the  Griqua  Government 
feels  itself  incompetent  to  exercise  over  them  .  .  .  that  authority 
.  .  .  imperatively  demanded,"  &c. 

We  have  already  seen  that  none  of  the  u  many  thou- 
sands "  were  in  Griqualand  ;  that  the  Griqua  Govern- 
ment had  nothing  at  all  to  do  with  them  ;  that  they 
were  all  in  the  Orange  Free  State  ;  and  that  on  the 
(3th  of  September,  1870,  President  Brand  had 
appointed  Mr.  0.  J.  Truter  as  Special  Commissioner 
at  the  diamond  fields. 

He  again  misinforms  Earl  Kimberley  that  the  "  Free 
State"  had,  "  since  the  discovery"  of  diamonds 

"Assumed  an  attitude  towards  the  Griqua  people  and  other  abo- 
riginal (?)  inhabitants,  which  plainly  indicates  an  intention  of  seizing 
upon  and  appropriating   .   .  .  nearly  the  whole  of  the  Griqua  and 


*  Vide  p.  88,  Bine  Book,  "  Correspondence  respecting  the  affairs  of 
the  Cape  of  Good  Hope," — London,  17th  August.  1871. 


282  GENERAL    HAY'S    "   10,1)00   MAN-EATERS." 

adjacent  other  native  territory,  and  of  ejecting  therefrom  the  native 
population  by  whom  if  is  now,  and  for  a  long  series  of  years  has  been 
occupied  "  /  /  / 

General  Hay  is  referring  to  the  diamond  fields — to 
South  Adamantia  as  claimed  by  Waterboer  and  Co.  I 
need  only  repeat  that  not  one  native  inhabitant 
(Griqua)  was  to  be  found  therein  when  I  was  there, 
and  during  two  years  I  took  very  particular  trouble 
to  observe  and  ascertain  that  fact. 

In  estimating  the  claims  Waterboer  has  to  British 
consideration ,  General  Hay  states: — 

"  The  first  of  these  important  services  was  rendered  in  the  year 
182.'},  when  a  vast  horde  of  Mantatees,  estimated  at  40,000  in 
number,  was  completely  broken  up  by  AVaterboer's  spirited  attack 
upon  them."  .  .   . 

I  do  not  emote  this  monstrously  exaggerated  piece 
of  nonsense  for  the  purpose  of  argument,  but  merely 
to  show  the  Africanders  the  nature  and  quality  of  the 
reasons  adduced  by  the  robbers  of  the  diamond  fields, 
and  by  which  the  British  Government  has  been 
utterly  deceived. 

In  concluding  this  brief  notice  of  General  Hay's 
despatch — which  may  be  classified  as  the  "40,000 
man-eater7'  one — and  his  connection  with  the  robbery 
of  the  Free  State  diamond  fields,  I  beg  to  quote,  for 
the  purpose  of  showing  his  gross  ignorance  of  the 
tilings  he  professed  to  write  about,  and  as  most  conclu- 
sively proving  the  fact,  that  he  never  can  have  seen  a 
real  living  Griqua  either  at  home  or  abroad,  and 
must  have  been  shamefully  imposed  upon,  the  fol- 
lowing extract : — 

".  .  .  The  Griquas  .  .  .  are  in  a  peculiar"  (very  peculiar! 
'"condition  of  civilization,    essentially    different  from  that  of  the 


GENERAL  HAy's  CONTRADICTORY  REPORTS.    2&J 

majority  of  native  tribes  here.  They  are  all  Christians  .  .  .  their 
laws  are  not  native,  but  European  laws.  In  fact,  they  arc  but  little 
removed  in  civilization  and  advancement  from  the  condition  of  such  of 
our  own  people  as  inhabit  adjacent  parts  of  the  Colony  .  .  .  Such  tribes 
as  these  seem  to  me  to  be  the  natural  means  by  whose  agency 
Africa  may  eventually  in  great  part  be  civilized." 

I  do  not  think  that  "such  of  our  own  people  as 
inhabit  adjacent  parts  of  the  Colony"  will  feel  flat- 
tered, or  will  beg  General  Hay  to  become  their 
historian. 

The  gallant  General  evidently  had  an  idea  that 
Marl  Kimberley  studied  policy  in  Exeter  Hall. 

How  does  he  reconcile  his  declaration,  dated  19th 
November,  1870,  that  the  Griquas  "  arc  but  little 
removed  in  civilization  and  advancement  from  such  of 
our  own  people,"  &c,  with  his  argument  urged  to 
strain  a  point  against  President  Brand  in  a  despatch, 
dated  October  15th,  only  thirty- five  days  before,  about 
"  untutored  people,  such  as  Waterboer  and  members  of 
his  council "  ? 

Here  follows  in  extern®  the  act  of  the  Cape  Govern- 
ment, upon  the  authority  of  which  the  acting  Governor, 
General  Hay,  proceeded  to  appoint  magistrates  to  the 
diamond  fields : — 

Extract  from   the  Minutes  oe  the  Executive  Couxcil,    dated 
September  14,  1S70. 

"  1.  The  Council  having  taken  into  special  consideration  the  cir- 
cumstances of  a  certain  tract  of  country  on  the  immediate  borders 
of  the  Colony,  north  of  the  Orange  Eiver,  in  which,  owing'  to  the 
recent  discovery  of  diamonds  in  large  numbers,  a  vast  concourse  of 
people  has  come  together,  for  the  most  part,  or  at  least  in  a  very 
large  proportion,  subjects  of  Her  Majesty,  and  considering  that  (1 
the  tract  in  question  has  till  lately  been  desert  and  unoccupied,  or  very 
sparsely  occupied,   only  at  times  for  nomadic  purposes,   and  thai" 


284  AN    ILLEGAL    PIECE  OF  LEGISLATURE. 

there  lias  (2)  within  the  same  been  no  exercise  of  any  recognized 
civilized  jurisdiction,  and  (3)  that  there  is  none  even  now;  and  further, 
considering  that  the  title  to  sovereignty  within  the  same  is  claimed 
by  different  parties  (4)  none  of  ivhom  has  in  fact  exercised  jurisdiction, 
and  (5)  that  there  is  no  reasonable  'probability  of  any  of  the  said  claimants 
being  ivithin  any  reasonable  time  able,  if  willing,  to  exercise  practically  any 
jurisdiction  therein;  and  further,  considering  that  (G)  the  claimant  who 
for  the  present  appears  to  have  shown  the  best  title  to  the  sovereignty  over 
the  tract  of  country  in  question  is  the  Griqua  Captain,  Nicolaas  Water- 
loo-, and  that  he  has  by  a  public  notice  published  by  him  on  the 
25th  August,  1870,  declared  his  inability  to  exercise  any  effective 
jurisdiction  therein,  and  has  requested  that  Her  Majesty's  Govern- 
ment should  take  steps  for  the  prevention  of  crime,  and  the  preser- 
vation of  peace  and  order  among  her  own  subjects  in  the  same  tract 
of  country:  is  of  opinion  that  it  is  expedient  that  the  powers  con- 
ferred on  His  Excellency  the  Lieutenant-Governor  as  administering 
the  Government  of  this  Colony,  by  the  Imperial  Statute  2G  and  27 
Yict.  cap.  35,  should  be  exercised  by  addressing  to  two  or  more 
persons,  subjects  of  Her  Majesty  within  the  said  tract  of  country, 
commissions  under  the  said  Act  to  exercise  the  powers  and  perform 
the  duties  of  magistrates,  for  the  purposes  of  the  said  Act  within  the 
tract  of  country  bounded  by  the  limits  hereinafter  mentioned,  that 
is  to  say, 

"  From  Hamuli  on  the  Orange  River,  in  a  straight  line  to  David1  s 
Graf  near  the  juncture  of  the  Riet  and  Modder  rivers ;  thence  in  a 
straight  line  to  Platberg  near  the  Vaal  River;  thence  to  the  Yaal 
River ;  thence  up  the  said  river  to  its  junction  with  the  Yet  River  ; 
thence  from  the  said  river  in  a  straight  line  to  the  mission  station 
above  Bootschap  near  the  Hart  River ;  thence  in  a  straight  line  to 
Bootschap  ;  thence  in  a  straight  line  to  Kramer's  Fontein  ;  thence 
in  a  straight  line  to  Griqua  Town,  and  from  thence  in  a  straight 
line  to  the  junction  of  the  Yaal  and  Orange  rivers,  and  thence 
along  the  Orange  River  up  to  Ramah  aforesaid. 

"And  the  Council  advises  that  such  Commissions  should  be 
issued  accordingly  as  soon  as  it  shall  be  ascertained  who  will  be  fit 
and  proper  persons  to  whom  the  same  may  be  addressed. 

1 '  True  Extract, 

11  Hampden  Willis." 

The  boundary   here  proclaimed   cuts  off  from  the 


THE    "ACT"    BASED    ON    FALSE    PREMISES.  285 

Free  State  all  South  Adamantia,  all  the  diamond 
fields,  and  143  #  farms,  and  is  exactly  that  to  which 
Waterboer's  fraudulent  claim  applies. 

The  above  act  is  based  entirely  upon  a  conclusion 
derived  from  the  six  specific  premises,  which  I  have 
numbered,  and  changed  into  italics. 

We  have  seen  that  Mr.  0.  J.  Truter  was  already 
exercising  jurisdiction  as  the  Free  State  Special  Com- 
missioner at  the  diamond  fields ;  and,  if  the  previous 
pages  of  this  work  have  accomplished  but  a  tittle  of 
their  object,  if  I  have  succeeded  in  proving  anything, 
it  is,  that  every  one  of  those  six  premises  arc  utterly 
and  in  to  to  false  and  incorrect.  Thus  then,  morally, 
the  act  itself  becomes  worthless,  fallacious,  and 
inoperative.  As  for  those  who  framed  it,  well  may  we 
thus  translate  a  classic  proverb:  "In  the  strongest 
light  they  exhibit  the  firmness  which  disdains  to 
correct  an  error,  and  the  cunning  which  rejoices  to 
smuggle  an  enactment  into  law." 

*  It  appears,  from  a  despatch  of  President  Brand's,  dated  February 
7th,  1872,  that  by  that  time  it  had  been  ascertained  that  in  all  143 
farms,  including  33  with  British  title-deeds,  were  cut  off  from  the  Free 
State  by  the  boundaries  claimed  ostensibly  for  Waterboer. 


286  OBJECT   01     THE     ^    LHOU'd    CRITICISMS. 


CHAPTEE   XIII. 

progress    of    the   colonial    government's    s<  hem] 
to  Annex    the  Diamond  Fields  belonging  to  thk 
Orange  Free  State;   axd  Analysis  of  the  False 
Evidence  on  which  that  Government  acted. 

Animus  furandi  of  the  Cape  Government's  policy  :  Exemption 
tbereebom  of  botn  the  colonists  and  their  parliament. — 
Advent  of  Governor  and  High  Commissioner  Sir  Henry 
Barely. — He  forthwith  adopts  the  Views  of  his  Predecessor 
and  the  Executive  Council  hostile  to  the  Free  State. — Hi- 
Triune  Despatch,  and  its  Gross  Mistatements. — President 
Brand's  Replies:  He  charges  the  Colonial  Government  with 
Violating  TnE  Convention  or  Treaty  of  1854. — Sir  H.  Barely 

ENDORSES  WaTEREOEe'^  MERE  ASSERTION  OF  FORGERY  AGAINST  THE 

Free  State  Government,  which  President  Brand  refutes. — 
Unjust  Arbitration  proposed  by  Sir  H.  Barely. — President 
Brand's  Fair  and  Legal  Counter  Proposal. — SirH.  Barely*  s 
Misrepresentations  to  Earl  Kimrerley. — The  British  Go- 
vernment DECEIVED,  CONSENTS  TO  ANNEX  THE  DIAMOND  FIELDS, 
UPON  CERTAIN  CONDITIONS.  —  COMMISSION,  EMBRACING  THOSE 
<   ONDITIONS,  SENT  TO  SlR  H.  BARELY. 

The  particular  effort  I  am  making  to  expose  the 
utter  falseness  and  hypocrisy  of  the  reasons  and  argu- 
ments advanced  by  the  Cape  Government  during  its 
hostile  controversy -with  the  Free  State,  is  for  the  main 
purpose  of  proving*  the  felonious  nature  of  the  policy 
by  which  the  Colonial  Executive  Council  eventually 
annexed    the    diamond    fields — that   being   the   one 


Tin: 


CAPE    COLONISTS    AND    PARLIAMENT    BLAMELESS.    287 


object  for  which,  from  the  first,  those  rulers  of  the 
Capo  undeviatingly  struggled.  No  one  acquainted 
with  the  true  merits  of  the  case  could  peru.se  the 
official  correspondence  which  has  emanated  from  the 
(  ape  Town  Government  House  without  keenly  appre- 
ciating the  famous  Frenchman's  famous  epigram, 
"  Lie,  lie,  persistently  lie,  and  something"  will  come 
of  it  "  ! 

The  Colonists,  and  the  Colonial  Parliament,  I  gladly 
and  especially  exempt  from  all  connection  with,  parti- 
cipation in,  or  responsibility  for  the  acts  perpetrated 
by  their  "irresponsible"  Government;  the  Parliament 
having  repudiated  those  acts,  and  the  public  having 
readily  acceyjted  that  repudiation,  though  unable  to> 
guide  or  restrain  that  criminal  policy  of  the  clique 
composing  the  Executive  Council — an  irresistible  argu- 
ment in  favour  of  the  change  of  constitution,  the  lately 
established  "responsible"  Government! 

On  the  31st  December,  1870,  Sir  Henry  Barkly 
arrived  at  Cape  Town  to  assume  the  post  of  Governor 
and  High  Commissioner,  and  with  special  instructions 
to  try  and  arrange  the  diamond  fields1  imbroglio.  He 
at  once,  with  the  new  year,  entered  upon  his  duties : 
possibly  proving  a  great  blessing  to  the  Cape  Colon  v, 
but  certainty  turning  out  to  be  a  most  undesirable 
new  year's  gift  so  far  as  the  Orange  Free  State  was 
concerned. 

A  few  days  before  his  arrival  President  Brand  and 
Mr.  Hutton  had  reached  Cape  Town,  as  mentioned 
in  our  last  chapter,  for  the  purpose  of  pleading 
their  country's  cause  against  Waterboer  and  Go's, 
scheme. 

Influenced,  no  doubt,  by  the  unfriendly  disposition 


"288  ADVENT   OF   SIB    HENRY    BARKLY. 

to  the  Orange  Free  State  and  South  African  Republic 
displayed  by  the  Home  Government,  and  by  the  pre- 
vious action  taken  by  his  predecessor,  General  Hay ; 
and  being  also  entirely  advised  and  instructed  by  Mr. 
Southey  and  the  remaining  members  of  the  Executive 
Council ;  the  fact  that  Sir  Henry  Barkly  at  once 
adopted  the  existing  policy  in  all  its  unquestioning 
approval  of  AVaterbocr,  and  all  its  undeviating  bias, 
injustice,  and  hostility  against  the  Free  State,  can 
excite  but  small  surprise.  Indeed,  as  a  just  historian 
of  these  events,  I  must  observe  that  it  would  have  been 
extremely  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  for  him  to  have 
done  otherwise.  He  could  hardly,  as  a  total  stranger 
to  the  country  and  the  past  proceedings,  commence 
office  in  entire  opposition  to  all  his  colleagues :  more- 
over, even  had  he  been  just-minded,  independent,  and 
willing  enough  to  do  so,  with  an  "irresponsible" 
Government,  it  was  out  of  the  question. 

Naturally  enough,  under  these  circumstances  the 
visit  of  President  Brand  had  no  effect  upon  the  long 
predetermined  policy  in  question.  In  continuation 
of  my  effort  to  expose  the  false  views  and  incorrect 
arguments  of  the  late  Colonial  Government,  I  must 
now  notice  the  correspondence  which  ensued  between 
the  President  and  Sir  H.  Barkly. 

Although  from  one  sentence  written  by  the  Governor 
to  Earl  Kimberley  in  a  despatch  dated,  "  Bloemfon- 
tein,  March  8,  1871,"* — "  For  it  appeared  to  me 
that  the  British  Government  had  already  gone  too  far 
to  admit  of  its  ceasing  to  support  the  cause  of  Water- 
bocr" — Ave  might  well  dismiss   all    discussion   of   Sir 

*  Vide  p.  133,  Blue  Book   "  Correspondence  respecting  the  affairs  of 
the  Cape  of  Good  Hope," — London,  August  17,  1871." 


SIR  H.  BARKLY  PRONOUNCES  AGAINST  THE  FREE  STATE.  289 

H.  Barkly' s  policy  as  being  that  of  an  undoubtedly 
biassed  and  unduly  influenced  partizan,  yet  that  would 
not  illustrate  upon  what  false  and  incorrect  premises 
his  arguments  were  founded ;  so  those  I  proceed  to 
extract  from  his  despatches. 

President  Brand  had  produced  (in  addition  to  the  very 
ample  evidence  already  reviewed  in  Chapter  VI.,  VII. , 
VIII. ,  IX.,  X.,  as  "  Minutes  of  the  Meeting  at  Nooit- 
gedacht ")  not  only  a  certified  extract  from  the  books 
of  the  Register  of  Deeds  at  Bloemfontein,  quoting  the 
title  deeds  to  one  hundred  of  the  Free  State  farms  cut 
off  by  the  line  claimed  for  Waterboer  from  Ramah  via 
David's  Graf  to  Platberg,  eighteen  of  which  certificates 
had  been  issued  ly  Major  Warden,  the  British  Resident, 
during  the  existence  of  the  Sovereignty  nineteen  gears  ago, 
but  many  other  original  letters  and  documents,  to  any 
reasonable  mind,  most  conclusively  proving  that  the 
disputed  territory  of  South  Adamantia  had  for  many 
years  been  part  of  the  Free  State,  and  never  land  of 
Waterboer's.  Sir  H.  Barkly,  in  a  set  of  three  despatches 
in  reply  thereto,  dated  "  Government  House,  2 -3rd 
January,  1871,"  made  (or  rather  shall  we  say,  Mr. 
Southey  made  for  him)  the  following  misstatements : — 


In  the  second  of  the  triad,  disputing  President 
Brand's  proof  that,  upon  the  death  of  Andries  Water- 
boer, the  British  Government  had  ceased  to  be  in 
alliance  with  the  Griquas  under  that  Chiefs  son  and 
successor,  the  present  Waterboer ;  and  that  by  Article 
2  of  the  Convention  of  1854  (See  Chapter  III.)  any 
future  treaty  with  that  Chief  was  estopped ;  Sir  H. 
Barkly  declared  : 

u 


200  "  SUO    SIBI   GLADIO  HUNC    JUGULO." 

"  Sir  George  Grey  having*  notwithstanding  Sir  George  Cathcart's 
unwillingness  to  do  so,  renewed  and  confirmed  with  the  Chief  Nicolas 
Waterboer,  the  self-same  arrangement  which  had  been  entered  into  with 
his  father,  Andries,  by  Sir  Benjamin  Z)' Urban." 

This  statement  is  exactly  contrary  to  fact.  Adverting 
to  it  in  a  despatch  dated  "Cape  Town,  January 
2d,  1871,"  President  Brand  and  Mr.  Hutton  ob- 
serve "J*  : — 

"  We  would  feel  obliged  if  your  Excellency  would  favour  us 
with  a  copy  of  the  treaty  '  renewed  between  Sir  George  Grey  and 
the  Chief  Waterboer,'  mentioned  in  your  letter  of  the  23rd  instant, 
Section  4." 

Certes,  Sir  H.  Barkly  here  was  guilty  of  a  serious 
faux  pas.  Replying  to  the  above  request,  he  had  to 
shuffle  out  of  and  deny  his  first  statement,  by  a  de- 
spatch dated  the  next  day,  admitting  £ : — 

"  I  am  unable  to  accede  to  your  Honour's  request  to  be  furnished 
with  a  copy  of  the  treaty  '  renewed,  between  Sir  George  Grey  and 
the  Chief  Nicolas  Waterboer,'  no  formal  document  having  been  considered 
necessary  "/ 

As  treaties  are  " formal  documents"  that  of  1834, 
between  Sir  B.  D'Urban  and  A.  Waterboer  (as  we  have 
seen  at  page  81,  Chapter  IV.)  was  not  "  renewed  and 
confirmed  " ! 

In  trying  to  escape  from  the  distinct  provisions  of 
Article  2,  of  the  Convention  of  1854,  the  Governor 
states  § : — 

"  To   suppose  that  .  .  .  the  substitution  of   British    for  native 

*  Vide  p.  127,  Blue  Book,   "  Correspondence  respecting  the  affairs  of 
the  Cape  of  Good  Hope" — London,  August  17,  1871. 
f  Vide  p.  130,  Ibid. 
X  Ibid 
§  Vide  p.  128,  Ibid. 


THE  NEW  GOVERNOR'S  LOGIC  EXAMINED.     291 

rule  is  likely  to  prove  '  injurious  or  prejudicial'  to  the  Orange  Free 
State  is  an  hypothesis  which  need  not  be  seriously  discussed." 

But  the  second  party  to  the  Treaty  or  Convention  of 
1854  thought  otherwise,  and  did  not  appreciate  the 
rationale  of  being  thus  cavalierly  treated  by  the  first 
party.  It  is  true,  if  Sir  H.  Barkly's  position  was  to  be 
maintained,  the  "  hypothesis"  had  better  not  be  seri- 
ously discussed.  But  setting  aside  for  a  moment  the 
irresistible  fact  that  the  territory  in  which  this  British 
rule  was  to  be  substituted  was  de  facto  under  Free 
State,  not  native,  rule,  let  us  observe  President 
Brand's  logical  refutation  of  the  Governor's  "  hypo- 
thesis." 

In  a  despatch  dated  u  Bloemfontein,  March  4th, 
1871 ,"  the  President  replying  seriatim  to  the  Governor's 
triune  communication  of  the  23rd  of  January  last, 
states*  : 

"Article  2  of  the  Convention  states  that  '  Her  Majesty' s  Govern- 
ment  has  no  wish  or  intention  to  enter  hereafter  into  any  treaties 
which  may  be  injurious  or  prejudicial  to  the  inter es  ts  of  the  Orange  Free 
State.''  And  our  Government  maintains  that  entering  into  a  treaty 
with  a  native  Chief,  or  entertaining  his  application  to  be  received 
with  his  people  as  British  subjects,  at  a  time  when  he  disputes  the 
rights  of  the  Orange  Free  State,  must  necessarily  '  be  injurious  and 
prejudicial'  to  its  interests,  as  it  thereby  becomes  involved  in  dif- 
ferences with  the  British  Government." 

(Finds  the  difference  with  the  "  Native  Chief"  trans- 
ferred to  the  British  Government,  and  thereby  becomes 
plundered  of  its  territory,  the  President  might  have 
added)  .  .  . 

"  Supposing  the  Free  State  had  no  dispute  with  a  native  chief,  and 


*  Vide  p.  158,  Blue  Book,  "  Correspondence  respecting  the   affairs 
of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope."— London,  August  17, 1871. 

u2 


292  sir  h.  barkly's   first,  or  triune,  DESPATCH. 

Her  Majesty's  Government,  acceding  to  his  request,  received  him  as 
a  British  subject,  it  might  not  '  be  injurious  or  prejudicial  to  the 
interests  of  the  Free  State.'  " 

This  reply ;  the  distinct  terms  of  the  Conventions  of 
1852  and  1854,  "  disclaiming  all  alliances  whatever  and 
ivith  tvhomsoever  of  the  coloured  nations  to  the  north  of  the 
Vaal  River";  the  policy  carried  out  by  Sir  Harry 
Smith,  Sir  George  Cathcart,  and  Sir  G  eorge  Grey ;  and 
the  specific  instructions  given  by  the  Home  Govern- 
ment, by  the  Duke  of  Newcastle,  the  Right  Hon.  H. 
Labouchere,  &c. ;  utterly  falsifies  Sir  H.  Barkly' s 
logic.  We  need  not  discuss  the  point  any  further ; 
certainly  there  is  scarcely  a  man  in  South  Africa  who 
will  deny  the  publicly  accepted  fact  that  the  support 
of  Waterboer  by  the  British  Government,  and  the 
subsequent  annexure  of  the  so-called  "  Griqualand 
West,"  was  very  particularly  "  injurious  and  preju- 
dicial," to  the  Free  State,  and  was  done  solely  to 
steal  or  "  jump  "  its  diamond  fields. 

In  the  third  of  his  three  despatches  of  the  23rd  of 
January,  Sir  H.  Barkly  makes  the  following  mis- 
statements and  fallacious  arguments  : — 

Extracts  from  Despatch  :  Remarks  Thereon  : 

(a)  "  3. 1  gather  from  the  cor-  (a)  It  is  a  very  old  and  true 

respondence  between  my  prede-  saying  that,  "You  can  tell  a  man 

cessor   and    your    Honour  that  a  thing,  but  you  cannot  find  him 

General  Hay  was  unable  to  un-  brains   to   understand    it."     If 

derstand     by     what    process    the  General  Hay  and  Sir  H.  Barkly 

Orange    Free    State    Government  were  "  unable  to  understand " 

became  possessed  of  sovereign  rights  the  "process"  in  question,  the 

over  the  territory  in  question  ;  for  admission    simply   means    that 

even  if  it  be  assumed,   for  the  they  were   unable  to  fulfil  the 

#  Vide  p,  128,  Blue  Book,  "  Correspondence  respecting  the  affairs 
of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope."— London,  17th  August,  1871. 


REVIEW    OF    SIR    H.    BARKLY's    DESPATCH. 


293 


sake  of  argument,  that  Corne- 
lius Kok  was  an  independent 
Chief,  and  that  Waterboer  was 
a  consenting  party  to  the  Vet- 
berg  line  being  defined  by 
Adam  Kok,  all  that  that  pro- 
ceeding appeared  to  have  accom- 
plished was  (b)  to  leave  the  lands 
north  of  that  line  and  between 
the  Vaal  River  and  the  line 
claimed  by  Waterboer  from 
Raman  to  Platberg,  within  the 
limits  of  C.  Kok^s  independent 
hcrisdiction ;  and  there  do  not 
seem  to  have  been  any  further 
or  subsequent  proceedings  by 
which  the  Free  State  acquired 
the  rights  of  sovereignty  withiu 
those  lines. 


"4.  I  confess  that  I  am 
labouring  under  the  same  diffi- 
culty as  my  predecessor  expe- 
rienced .  .  . 


(c)  "  ...  It  is  asserted  in  sub- 
stance that  the  territory  claimed 
by  Waterboer  within  what  is 
denominated  the  Vetberg  line, 
has  belonged  to  the  Orange 
Free  State,  and  been  in  the  un- 
disturbed occupation  of  its  sub- 
jects during  the  last  twenty 
years.  It  now  appears,  how- 
ever, that  the  Deeds  Registry  of 
your  Government  shows  that,  up 


duties  of  their  high  office. 
Everyone  in  South  Africa,  ex- 
cept those  two  Governors,  knows 
that  when  a  civilized  Govern- 
ment or  white  population  buys 
ground  from  a  native  Chief,  the 
sovereign  or  territorial  right 
goes  with  the  sale  ;  in  this  case, 
moreover,  it  was  specially  un- 
derstood. Cornelius  and  Adam 
Kok  always  so  sold  their  land  ; 
they  never  disputed  the  transfer 
of  sovereign  rights ;  and  when 
Adam  Kok  left  for  Nomansland, 
he  sold  off  to  the  Free  State 
all  of  their  lands  that  had 
not  previously  been  bought. 
He  has  never  since  claimed  any 
sovereign  rights;  and  es  Sir 
H.  Barkly  mean  to  s  that 
they  are  still  vested  in  hi 

(b)  At  the  time  the  Vetberg 
line  was  made,  the  Free  State  did 
not  possess  all  the  land  up  to  it ; 
only  such  farms  as  had  then  been 
sold  by  Adam  and  Cornelius 
Kok. 

(c)  President  Brand  thus  re- 
plies*: "  On  the  3rd  February, 
1848,  Her  Majesty's  sovereignty 
was  proclaimed  over  the  territory 
between  the  'Orange  River,  the 
Vaal  River,  andtheDrakensberg.' 
.  . .  That  territory  was  by  Article  1 
ofthe  Convention  of  February  23rd, 
1854,  transferred  to  those  delegated 
by  the  inhabitants  to  receive  it  .  .  . 
The  Government  of  the  Orange 


*  Vide  p.  157,  Blue  Book,  "  Correspondence  respecting  the  affairs  of 
the  Cape  of  Good  Hope."— London,  August  17th,  1871. 


294 


REVIEW   CONTINUED. 


to  the  time  of  his  death  in  the 
year  1858,  Cornelius  Kok  exer- 
cised the  right  of  disposal  of 
lands  within  that  line,  both  by- 
sale  and  by  grant,  and  that  such 
sales  or  grants  were  in  most 
cases  made  in  favour  of  Griquas, 
'subjects'  of  his  own,  and  also 
that  those  Griquas  afterwards 
sold  indiscriminately  to  British 
subjects  or  subjects  of  other 
foreign  powers,  as  well  as  to 
persons  belonging  to  the  Orange 
Free  State,  and  it  was  after  these 
sales  had  been  effected  that  the 
lands  were  first  enregistered  in 
the  Deeds  Register  of  your 
Honour's  Government  .  .  . 


(d)  "  6.  I  am  at  a  loss  to  under- 
stand on  what  principle,  even 
supposing  these  sales  had  all 
been  made  to  subjects  of  your 
Government,  the  transfer  of  pro- 
perty in  land  situate  within  one 
State  to  the  subject  of  another  can 
transfer  the  sovereignty  over  the 
land  from  the  Government  of  the 
vendor  to  that  of  the  purchaser*', 
or  on  what  principle,  while  the 
Sovereignty  remained,  according 
to  your  Honour's  theory,  in  Cor- 
nelius Kok  and  his  successors, 
the  Free  State  Government  permit- 
ted these  lands  to  be  enregistered  in 
its  Land  Register;  (e)  and  this 
enregisterment,  seems  even  more 


Free  State  maintains  that  by 
the  Convention  the  territorial  limits 
of  the  State  were  bounded  by  the 
1  Orange  River,  the  Vaal  River  and 
the  Drakentberg ;'  but,  to  avoid 
disputes,  it  was  willing  to  accept 
the  line  made  by  Captain  Adam 
Kok,  on  the  5th  October,  1855, 
between  Captain  Watertoer  and 
Cornelius  Kok. 

Captain  Cornelius  Kok  volun- 
tarily submitted  to  and  authorized 
and  empowered  the  enregisterment  in 
the  Land  Register  of  the  State  of 
several  farms  sold  by  him  and 
his  subjects  to  different  parties. 

(e.)  By  the  law  of  the  State  no 
naturalization  is  necessary  to  en- 
able persons  not  being  burghers 
to  hold  landed  property ;  and 
the  fact  of  parties  appearing 
before  the  Registrar  of  Deeds  to 
obtain  transfers  and  enregister- 
ments  in  our  Deeds  Registry 
Office  shows  that  they  recognized 
and  acknowledged  that  the  ground 
was  situated  within  the  territorial 
limits  of  the  Orange  Free  State, 
and  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  its 
courts  as  the  locus  rei  sitae." 

(d.)  Sir  H.  Barkly,  as  we  have 
conclusively  shown,  discovered 
this  mare's  nest  simply  because 
he  was  "  at  a  loss  to  understand  " 
the  ancient  and  unchangeable 
custom  which  has  always  pre- 
vailed throughout  the  country. 
He  should  have  studied  its  his- 


*  Sir  H.  Barkly  of  course  ignores  the  fact  that  "  the  Government  of 
tlic  vendor"  did,  according  to  its  custom,  transfer  the  "  sovereignty  "  to 
the  defacto  Government  '  of  the  purchaser  "— tbat  of  the  Free  State. 


SIR    H.    BARKLY'S    ARGUMENTS    VENTILATED. 


295 


unaccountable  when  we  find  that 
many  of  the  persons  to  whom  the 
Griquas  sold  were  subjects  either 
of  Great  Britain  or  of  other 
States  foreign  to  the  Orange 
Free  State. 

(/)  "  8.  I  apprehend  that  these 
entries  ...  go  to  show  that  up 
to  1857  that  Government  had 
not,  and  did  not  exercise  sovereign 
power  within  the  limits  of  the 
Vefberg  line,  and  that  the  lands  in 
question  were  then  admitted  to  be 
within  Griqua  territory,  with  re- 
spect to  which  Griqua  subjects, 
with  the  full  knowledge  and  con- 
sent of  the  Free  State  Govern- 
ment, exercised  the  right  of  dis- 
posal both  by  sale  and  grant. 


(g)  "I  observe  that  out  of  the 
fifty-six  farms  (100  altogether) 
enumerated,  twenty-seven  are  al- 
leged to  have  been  sold  or  granted 
by  Captain  Cornelius  Kok,  be- 
tween the  years  1855  and  1859, 
the  later  date  being,  according  to  the 
evidence  of  W.  0.  Corner,  at  the 
meeting  atNooitgedacht,  a  year  after 
his  death;  indeed,  there  is  one, 
No.  39,  entered  as  having  been 
granted  by  C.  Kok  in  1865, 
which  may  be  a  clerical  error 
perhaps,  when  he  had,  according 
to  the  before-mentioned  evidence, 
been  dead  for  seven  years. 

(h)  "  9.  Your  Honour  is  already 
aware,  I  believe,  that  the  Chief 


tory  before  he   so   foolishly  and 
positively  published  his  opinions. 

(/)  In  this  misrepresentation 
Sir  H.  Barkly's  wish  must  have 
been  father  to  the  thought,  for 
no  impartial  person,  possessing 
any  information  on  the  subject, 
could  be  ignorant  of  the  fact 
that  the  line  of  frontier  farms 
bought  by  Free  State  subjects  (a 
boundary  continually  advancing 
by  fresh  purchases)  formed  the 
line  of  demarcation  between  that 
State  and  Cornelius  Kok,  two 
farms,  Driekoppan  (No.  234), 
and  Waterbak  (No.  235),  on  the 
Vetberg  line,  having  been  bought 
on  the  16th  March,  1849. 

(g)  To  this  charge,  in  his  de- 
spatch above  quoted,  President 
Brand  replies : 

"  I  have  the  honour  to  observe 
that,  according  to  the  list,  only 
one  farm,  viz.,  *  Mozip,  No.  127, 
is  stated  to  have  been  sold  by 
Capt.  C.  Kok  in  1859.  .  .  .  This 
is  a  clerical  error.  .  .  .  This 
farm  was  sold  on  the  9th  Novem- 
ber, 1859,  by  W.  0.  Corner, 
under  power  of  attorney  of  C. 
Kok,  8th  July,  1856,  subse- 
quently ratified  by  Captain  Adam 
Kok  on  the  14th  June,  1859." 

"The  date  of  farm  No.  39, 
Doornlaagte,is  erroneously  copied 
by  the  clerk  as  granted  by  C. 
Kok  in  1865;  it  ought  to  have 
been  29th  October,  1855." 

(h)  President  Brand's  reply 
completely  annihilates  the  ex  parte 


296         MESSRS.    WATERBOER    AND    CO.'s    ARGUMENTS. 


Waterboer  not  only  denies  that 
Cornelius  Kok  had  any  right  to 
dispose  of  these  lands"  (Ne  sus 
Minervam!  In  correcting  President 
Brand,  why  does  Sir  H.  JBarkly 
not  first  ascertain  that  for  thirty 
years  Waterboer  had  never  dis- 
puted those  sales  ?),  li  but  that  he 
also  asserts  that  many  of  the  trans- 
actions, by  virtue  of  which  the 
lands  have  been  enregistered  in 
the  Deeds  Eegistry  Office  of  the 
Orange  Free  State,  have  been  fic- 
titious, and  the  documents  purport- 
ing to  be  deeds  of  grant  and  of  sale, 
by  Cornelius  Kok,  forgeries  .  .  . 
In  corroboration  of  that  assertion, 
Waterboer  has  caused  to  be 
transmitted  to  this  Government 
certain  papers  connected  with 
the  farm  named  Vaalboschpan, 
No.  55  on  the  list  now  under 
observation,  viz.  : 

"  '  1.  Deed  of  sale  by  Capt.  C. 
Kok  to  Willem  Smit,  dated  10th 
January,  1855,  upon  which  is 
written  a  certificate  by  the  Regis- 
trar of  Deeds  at  Bloemfontein, 
that  the  property  was  transferred 
at  Fauresmith  on  the  26th  July, 
1860,  and  at  Bloemfontein,  pro- 
visionally, on  the  18th  August, 
I860.'" 

(Then  follow  the  dates  of  five 
successive  sales  and  transfers). 

"  Waterboer  has  drawn  atten- 
tion to  the  following  circum- 
stances : 

"'2nd.  That  the  document,  pur- 
porting to  be  a  deed   of  sale  by 


statements  and  hypothetical  argu- 
ments of  the  opposite  charge : 

"The  assertions  of  Waterboer 
are  disproved  by  several  inde- 
pendent witnesses  and  facts. 
'  Omnia  prasumuntur  rite  esse 
acta,"1  and  that  fraud  and  forgery 
are  never  presumed,  but  must  be 
clearly  proved,  are  sound  and  clear 
general  principles  of  jurispru- 
dence. The  transaction  of  sale 
of  10th  January,  1855,  which 
Waterboer  attempts  to  impugn, 
can  easily  be  explained.  Corner 
(who  was  the  son-in-law  and  the 
clerk  of  Cornelius  Kok)  and  Smit 
declare  that  the  sale  took  place 
on  the  10th  January,  1855, 
and  it  is  quite  consistent  with 
fact  that  Cornelius  Kok  might 
after  1856  have  given  a  written 
certificate  that  he  had  sold  a 
farm,  Vaalboschpan,  on  the  10th 
of  January,  1855,  and  instead  of 
dating  the  certificate  upon  the 
day  it  was  given,  did  what  Cap- 
tain Adam  Kok  in  more  than  one 
instance  also  did,  in  perfect  good 
faith,  dated  it  the  day  upon 
which  the  transaction  was  con- 
cluded." 

(In  support  of  President 
Brand's  statement,  I  beg  to  de- 
clare that  before  I  left  the  Free 
State,  I  took  particular  pains  to 
investigate  this  matter.  Early 
in  June,  1872,  at  Du  Toit's  Pan, 
in  the  presence  of  Mr.  J.  Gerald 
Donovan,  late  Government  In- 
spector   at    Pniel,    Mr.    W.    J. 


HARD    FACTS    V.    SIR    H.    BARKLY7S    LOGIC. 


297 


Captain  C.  Kok,  is  in  the  hand- 
writing of  W.  0.  Corner,  who  is 
the  only  witness  to  the  X  or 
marks  said  to  be  those  of  C.  Kok 
thereon, — and  that  by  the  water- 
mark upon  the  paper  on  which 
this  document  is  written,  it  can 
be  seen  that  it  (the  paper)  was 
manufactured  in  1856,  or  a  year 
after  the  date  of  the  deed  of  sale 
written  upon  it.' 

'"3rd.  That  the  first  enregister- 
ment  in  the  books  of  the  Orange 
Free  State,  on  the  26th  July, 
1860,  was  permitted  to  be  made 
by  Mr.  J.  A.  Hohne,  in  his 
capacity  as  agent  of  the  said  W. 
0.  Corner,  he  (Corner)  repre- 
senting that  his  authority  was  a 
power  of  attorney  granted  to  him 
by  C.  Kok  on  the  8th  July,  1856, 
although  it  was  then  (in  July, 
1860)  well  known  that  Cornelius 
Kok  had  been  dead  several  years, 
and  consequently  that  any  power  of 
attorney  granted  by  him  in  his  life- 
time had  thereby  become  void.'" 

"11.  These  facts  (?)  cer- 
tainly must  appear  to  any  im- 
partial person  to  give  much 
weight  (*')  to  Waterboer's  asser- 
tion as  to  the  fictitious  nature  of 
some  at  least  of  the  transactions 
by  means  of  which  registration  of 
the  lands  in  question  has  been 
obtained  or  procured  in  the  books 
of  the  Orange  Free  State." 

(Surely  Sir  H.  Barkly  does 
not  refer  to  himself  as  an  "im- 
partial person,"  when  he  subse- 


Crossley,  formerly  Captain  Adam 
Kok's  Government  Secretary, 
informed  me  that  it  had  been  the 
common  practice  by  the  Governments 
of  both  Koks  to  antedate  renewed 
"requests"  or  title-deeds,  in  place 
of  lost  originals,  to  the  date  of  the 
original  grant,  and  that  he,  by  Cap- 
tain Adam  KoWs  directions,  had 
frequently  done  so.) 

"  With  the  documents  filed  in 
the  cfhce  of  the  Eegistrar  of 
Deeds,  in  connection  with  the 
farm  '  Yaalboschpan,'  is  a  certi- 
fied copy  of  a  power  of  attorney 
by  Captain  C.  Kok,  executed  at 
Campbell  on  the  8th  July,  1856, 
appointing    W.    0.    Corner    his 

agent  and  attorney on 

the  back  of  which  is  written  : 

'I,  the  undersigned,  Adam 
Kok,  lawful  successor  and  exe- 
cutor of  the  late  C.  Kok,  Chief 
of  Campbell,  hereby  declare  to 
nominate  and  appoint,  by  virtue 
of  the  aforewritten  power  of 
attorney  of  the  late  Cornelius 
Kok,  Mr.  William  Ogilvie  Cor- 
ner, of  Philippolis. 

Adam  Kok,  Captain. 
As  witnesses : 

W.  C.  Crossley. 

James  Corner. 
Philippolis,  1 4  June,  1 8 5  9 . ''  " 

(See  AnnexureNo.  23,  Chapter 
10.) 

{%)  "But  even  supposing  that 
it  could  be  clearly  established  in 
a  court  of  law  that  the  transfer 
of  the  farm  '  Vaalboschpan  '  was 


298    FURTHER    REFUTATION    OF  SIR    H.  BARKLy's  THEORIES. 


made  without  sufficient  authority, 
that  might  have  been  a  ground 
for  the  late  Captain  Cornelius 
Kok,  or  the  Orange  Free  State 
Government  —  as  having  by 
virtue  of  the  sale  of  the  26th 
December,  1861,  become  owners 
of  all  the  open  ground  which  be- 
longed to  Cornelius  Kok — to  sue 
for  the  cancellation  of  the  trans- 
fer, if  it  could  be  shown  that  they 
had  exercised  due  diligence,  and 
had  not  been  the  cause  by  their 
silence  and  laches  of  injuring 
innocent  purchasers  ;  but  that 
could  never  give  Waterboer  any 
rigid  to  that  farm" 


quently  persisted  in  the  views 
announced  in  this  despatch, 
despite  the  proof  by  President 
Brand  that  no  matter  how  "  fic- 
titious "the  "  transactions  "  re- 
specting "  the  lands  in  question" 
might  have  been,  "  that  could 
never  give  Waterboer  any  right ;" 
that  really  his  charge  of  "  ficti- 
tious sales  "  was  false;  and  that 
for  many  years  the  land  had  been 
dejure  and  de  facto  Free  State 
land  ?  Moreover,  considering  he 
personally  well  knew  that  the 
New  Zealand  colonists  who 
bought  native  land  are  not  under 
Maori  sovereignty,  it  does  not 
prove  impartiality  by  pretending 
not  to  understand  parallel  cases 
in  the  Free  State.) 

I  cannot  close  this  review  of  Sir  H.  Barkly's  ex 
parte  and  ex  hypothesi  maintenance  of  Waterboer' s 
fraudulent  claims,  without  giving  two  or  three  more 
quotations  from  President  Brand's  logical  and  irre- 
sistibly powerful  reply : 

"The  Orange  Free  State  Government  has  exercised  jurisdiction 
over,  and  its  people  have  been  in  undisturbed  possession  and  occu- 
pation of,  the  140  farms  situated  in  the  tract  of  country  which 
Waterboer  now  claims  to  the  south  of  the  Yaal  River  since  1854. 
In  order  to  obtain  possession,  Waterboer  must  have  attacked  the 
people  and  driven  them  off  their  farms.  Supposing  he  had 
attempted  to  do  so,  would  the  British  Government  have  give  him 
any  support"  ? 

Referring  to  Waterboer's  petition  for  British  aid  and 
annexation,  President  Brand  adds  : 

"  But  when  such  request  is  made  and  acceded  to  at  a  time  when 
a  native  Chief  sets  up  a  claim  to  land  which  we  maiutain  unquestion- 
ably is  withiutlio  territory  of  the  Orauge  Five  State,  and  which  has 


A    PRETTY    PROPOSAL.  299 

been  for  a  series  of  years  in  the  occupation  of  our  people,  and  some 
under  British  titles  («),  then  our  Government  certainly  views  it  as 
'injurious and  prejudicial,'  and  contrary  to  Article  2  of  the  Conven- 
tion." 

Certes,  if  Sir  H.  Barkly' s  lucubrations  require  the 
explanation  of  Josh.  Billings — "  This  is  logic," — the 
same  cannot  be  said  of  his  correspondent's ! 

The  British  Government,  or  rather  Earl  Kimberley, 
deceived  by  General  Hay's  misstatements  of  the  case, 
instructed  Sir  H.  Barkly  on  his  departure  to  assume 
the  gubernatorial  office,  that,  "  It  would  be  most  de- 
sirable that  the  proposals  made  by  Sir  Philip  Wode- 
house  for  a  settlement  of  the  disputed  claims  by  arbi- 
tration, should  be  renewed  and  urgently  pressed." 
Sir  H.  Barkly  thereupon,  in  the  trio  of  despatches 
under  review,  urged  upon  the  Free  State  "  a  reference 
of  the  whole  matter  to  arbitration  ";  meaning,  of  course, 
South  Adamantia  as  well  as  the  Campbell  lands  !  In 
his  reply  to  President  Brand's  request  to  be  furnished 
with  a  copy  of  the  renewed  treaty  Sir  H.  Barkly 
alleged  (but  afterwards  denied)  to  have  been  made 
with  Waterboer,  the  Governor,  after  stating  that  he 
did  possess  "  the  document  purporting  to  be  a  deed  of 
sale  referred  to  as  written  on  paper  manufactured  a 
year  after  the  alleged  date  of  the  transaction,"  goes  on 
to  say,  u  I  am  not  certain  that  any  other  of  Waterboer1  s 
jproofs  are  in  possession  of  this  Government1''  !  Yet,  in 
spite  of  this  distinct  admission  that  all  Waterboer' s 
case  besides  that  refuted  document  consisted  of  the 
petty  claimant's  ipse  dixit.  Sir  H.  Barkly  actually  pre- 
sumed to  propose  to  the  Free  State  Government  a 
submission  of  its  rights  to  its  143  farms  to  arbitration  ! 
— to  propose  upon  only  this  exploded  piece  of  evidence, 
that  the  Free  State  should  submit  to  arbitration  its  un- 


300    PRESIDENT    BRAND    PROPOSES    FOREIGN    ARBITRATION. 

doubted  territory,  embracing  143  long  inhabited,  built 
on,  and  improved  farms,  and  (a)  on  thirty-three  of 
which  the  British  Sovereignty  Government,  previous 
to  the  Convention  of  1854,  had  year  after  year  levied 
quit-rents  without  their  discovering,  or  even  so  much 
as  hearing  of,  Waterboer's  pretended  right  to  the  land ! 
At  the  instance,  too,  of  that  insignificant  semi-savage, 
who  never  owned  a  foot  of  the  land,  and  has  never  even 
directly  asserted  that  he  did ;  although,  in  order  to  create 
a  plausible  pretext  for  seizing  the  diamond  fields  for 
themselves,  the  members  of  the  Cape  Government  have 
chosen  to  interpret  his  indirect  claim,  through  Cor- 
nelius Kok  as  his  subordinate,  as  a  direct  and  positive 
proof  of  ownership ! 

In  concluding  his  reply  to  Sir  H.  Barkly's  trio  of 
despatches  of  the  23rd  of  January,  1871,  President 
Brand  makes  the  following  just  and  reasonable  ofier: — 

44  But,  as  her  Majesty's  Government  has,  by  steps  taken  upon 
Waterboer's  request,  virtually  hecome  a  party  to  the  controversy, 
and  as  it  is  of  the  utmost  importance  that  we  should  have  a  clear 
understanding  as  to  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  Article  2  of  the 
Convention,  I  would  be  ready  to  recommend  to  the  Volksraad — who 
alone  has  the  power  to  decide  such  a  question — to  refer  the  following 
questions  to  the  decision  of  any  independent  power  (for  instance,  the 
President  of  the  United  States  of  America,  or  to  the  King  of 
Holland):  — 

44  1st.  Whether,  under  the  present  circumstances,  her  Majesty's 
Government  can,  consistently  with  the  true  intent  and  meaning  and 
the  spirit  of  Article  2  of  the  Convention,  accede  to  the  request  of 
Captain  Waterboer  3?  and 

44  2ndly.  To  decide  as  arbitrator,  on  the  validity  of  the  title  of  the 
Orange  Free  State  Government  to  the  Campbell  lands ;  that  is,  the 
lands  on  the  north  of  the  Vaal  Eiver  "  ? 

After  what  we  have  seen  of  the  one-sided,  unfair,  pre- 
determined policy  of  the  British  and  Colonial  Govern- 


EARL    KIMBERLEY    REJECTS    FOREIGN  ARBITRATION.    301 

ments  in  this  matter,  need  it  be  added  that  this  very 
rational  and  just  proposition  was  refused  ?  All  dis- 
cussion of  the  Second  Article  of  the  Convention  was 
resolutely  declined.  The  British  party  to  the  Con- 
vention must  alone  interpret,  decide,  and  act  upon 
solemn  agreements  and  stipulations  entered  into  with 
the  Free  State  second  party  !  Why  ?  Because  the 
second  party  could  not  fight,  and  because — as  we  have 
so  fully  seen  by  the  interpretations  put  upon  that  2nd 
Article  by  the  Duke  of  Newcastle,  Governors  Sir  Harry 
Smith,  Sir  George  Clerk,  Sir  George  Cathcart,  Sir 
George  Grey,  and  Sir  Philip  Wodehouse,  and  especially 
by  the  Right  Hon.  H.  Labouchere,  that  question  must 
most  assuredly  have  been  decided  in  favour  of  the 
Free  State ! 

In  a  despatch  dated  "  Downing  Street,  June  3, 
1871,"  Earl  Kimberley,  in  reply  to  Sir  H.  Barkly's 
communication  of  President  Brand's  offer,  states : — 

"  Her  Majesty's  G-overnment*  have  no  wish  or  intention  to 
violate  any  right  which  belongs  to  the  Orange  Free  State — " 

(At  this  time,  be  it  remembered,  by  the  appointment 
of  British  magistrates  within  Free  State  territory,  and 
by  the  acceptance  of  Waterboer's  petition  to  be  re- 
ceived, with  the  lands  he  chose  to  claim,  under  British 
rule,  the  rights  of  the  Free  State  were  most  flagrantly 
violated) 

"  but  they  cannot  admit  the  pretensions  founded  by  Mr.  Brand 
on  the  2nd  Art.  of  the  Convention  of  1851,  nor  can  they  consent  to 
refer  to  arbitration  the  point  raised  by  him  as  to  its  construction"  ! 

*  Vide  p.  183,  Blue  Book,   "  Correspondence  respecting  the  affairs 
of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope." — London,  August  17,  1871. 


302  BRITISH    ARROGANCE    AND    AGGRESSION. 

What,  then  was  the  purpose,  or  the  use  of  a  Treaty 
or  Convention,  if  only  the  strongest  of  the  two  powers 
between  whom  it  is  made  is  to  decide  upon  and  inter- 
pret its  clauses? 

This  gross  violation  of  international  law,  treaty  law, 
and  the  rights  of  the  Free  State  would  be  paralleled  by 
an  analogous  case :  If  the  Korana  Chief,  Massu  Rijt 
Taaibosch,  had  claimed  Cape  Town,  and  the  Free  State 
{being  strong  enough)  had  supported  his  claim,  had  agreed 
to  accept  him  as  a  subject,  and  the  land  he  claimed 
as  Free  State  land,  and  then  appointing  Free  State 
magistrates  to  rule  over  the  Cape  Town  dejure  and  de 
facto  territory,  had  proposed  that  Great  Britain  and  the 
Korana  Chief  should  submit  the  question  to  arbitration ! 

It  is  now  necessary  to  expose  the  prejudiced  and 
false  reports  made  by  Sir  H.  Barkly  to  Earl  Kimberley, 
both  of  the  correspondence  and  events  just  noticed,  of 
his  visit  to  the  diamond  fields  in  February,  1871,  and 
of  the  ensuing  occurrences,  by  which  the  British 
Government  was  induced  to  consent  to  a  conditional 
annexation  of  "  the  whole  of  Waterboer's  territory," 
including,  of  course,  "  the  diamond  fields." 

Those  who  have  perused  the  review  of  Sir  H. 
Barkly's  trio  of  despatches  of  the  23rd  of  January,  and 
President  Brand's  reply,  cannot  fail  to  agree  as  to  the 
utterly  false  nature  of  the  former's  report  thereon,  in  a 
despatch  to  Earl  Kimberley,  dated  "  Cape  Town, 
February  1,  1871 "  : 

"A  perusal*  of  that  part  of  the  correspondence  .  .  .  will,  I 
doubt  not,  convince  your  Lordship  that  the  documents  exhibited 
on  behalf  of  the  Free  State—" 

*  Vide  p.  107,  Blue  Book,  "  Correspondence  respecting  the  affairs 
of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope."— London,  August  17th,  1871. 


GOVERNOR  BARKLY'S  FALSE  REPORTS.       303 

(He  forgets,  of  course,  to  state  that  none  but  the 
alleged  title-deed  on  paper  of  a  year's  later  manufacture 
than  the  date,  had  been  produced  by  Waterboer !) 

— "  altogether  failed  to  prove  the  length  of  possession  or  undis- 
puted enjoyment  of  sovereign  rights,  previously  asserted,  over  the 
territory  lying  within  the  so-called  Vetberg  line.  No  just  ground 
is  established  by  them,  therefore,  for  the  refusal  of  that  Grovern- 
ment  to  refer  the  dispute  with  Waterboer,  as  to  the  lands  on  the 
left  bank  of  the  Yaal,  for  Sir  Philip  Wodehouse's  arbitration,  as 
agreed  on  in  the  case  of  the  Campbell  grounds  .  .   . 

"4.  On  the  contrary,  the  abstracts  produced  .  .  .  tended  to 
confirm,  in  some  instances,  Waterboer' s  allegations  that  many  of 
the  transactions,  on  the  strength  of  which  registration  was  granted, 
were  fictitious,  and  the  documents,  purporting  to  be  deeds  of  grant 
or  sale  by  Cornelius  Kok,  forgeries. 

"5.  I  would  especially  draw  your  Lordship's  attention  to  one 
case  pointed  out  in  my  letter  to  President  Brand,  in  which  this  is 
proved  beyond  a  shadow  of  doubt,  by  the  fact  of  a  deed  purporting  to 
be  an  original  concession — " 

(Waterboer  has  yet  to  prove  that  the  paper  produced 
was  the  "  original  concession,"  or  even  an  ante-dated 
renewal!  The  forgery,  if  forgery  there  was,  might 
have  been  by  Waterboer  or  Mr.  David  Arnot) 

— "  bearing  date  a  year  earlier  than  the  watermark  of  the  paper 
on  which  it  is  written,  and  yet  so  lax  was  the  practice  of  the  Free 
State  officials,  that  they  not  only  overlooked  this,  but  actually 
registered  the  title  thus  originated  under  a  power  of  attorney  said 
to  have  been  granted  by  Cornelius  Kok,  that  individual,  as  they 
must  have  known,  having  been  dead  two  years  before  the  time  of 
registration." 

(Of  course,  Sir  H.  Barkly  not  only  carefully  avoids 
all  mention  of  President  Brand's  explanation,  but  also 
conceals  the  fact  that  the  said  power  of  attorney  had  been  re- 
newed by  the  Chief,  Adam  Kok,  Cornelius  Ko¥s  lawful 
successor !) 

"  6.  Under  circumstances  of  such  grave  suspicion,  I  felt  that  I 


304    SCHEME  OF  THE  LATE  CAPE  GOVERNMENT. 

could  not  .   .   .  admit  any  of  the  conclusions  which   the  deputation 
came  prepared  to  press  upon  me." 

( 0  si  sic  omnia  !  Had  Sir  H.  Barkly  only  as  promptly 
and  perspicuously  picked  out  one  false  statement  in 
Waterboer's  trumped-up  case,  and  thus  severely,  upon 
the  maxim  that  falsehood  once  detected  permeates  the 
whole  of  a  witness's  evidence,  refused  to  "  admit  any 
of"  his  "  conclusions,"  what  reputation  for  consistency, 
for  impartiality,  for  critical  power,  for  judicial  quali- 
ties, might  he  not  have  gained !) 

From  this  point  every  effort  was  made  by  the  Colo- 
nial Government  to  obtain  the  annexation  of  the  Free 
State  diamond  fields  to  itself.  In  order  to  fulfil  the  three 
conditions  Earl  Kimberley  stipulated  for  as  those  alone 
possible  to  induce  Her  Majesty's  Government  to  con- 
sent to  annexation,  in  his  despatch  of  instructions  to 
Sir  H.  Barkly  dated  November  17th,  1870,  noticed 
in  our  last  Chapter,  we  must  carefully  remember  that 
it  was  the  policy  of  the  Colonial  Government  to  make 
Ministers  in  Downing  Street  believe  : 

1.  That  the    "  Extension   of    the   South   African  Colonies 

COULD"   (not)   "  BE  AVOIDED." 

2.  That  the  "  Colony  "  (would)  "  be  willing  to  take  upon  itself 

THE      FULL     RESPONSIBILITIES     OF      GOVERNMENT,     WITH    THE    BURDEN 
OF    MAINTAINING   THE   FORCE     NECESSARY/'    (TO    HOLD     THE     DIAMOND 

fields). 

3.  That  "  the  white  immigrants  "  (the  diggers)  "  concurred 
with  the  natives  in  desiring  that  the  griqua  territory  "  (in- 
cluding the  diamond  fields)  "  should  be  united  to  the  cape 
Colony." 

Sir  H.  Barkly  worked  energetically  and  successfully 
indeed  to  make  the  British  Government  credit  these 
three  affirmative  replies  to  Earl  Kimberley' s  hypo- 
thetical triune  proviso. 


SIR    H.    BAKKLY'S   FALSE   REPORTS.  305 

His  first  direct  effort  appears  in  a  despatch  to  Earl 
Kimberley,  dated  "  Bloemfontein,  March  8,  1871." 
He  had  then  just  reached  the  capital  of  the  Free  State, 
on  his  return  journey  to  Cape  Town  from  a  visit  to  the 
diamond  fields,  where  he  appears,  by  his  statements, 
to  have  spent  only  four  days  ;  and  this  is,  to  the  best  of 
my  recollection,  the  correct  time.  I  was  present  at  his 
arrival  on  the  26th  February,  1871,  and  remember  his 
departure  about  the  2nd  or  3rd  of  March.  This  was  not 
a  long  visit.  Indeed,  for  the  purpose  of  acquiring  any 
real  knowledge  of  the  diamond  fields,  the  desires  and 
necessities  of  the  population,  the  state  of,  and  the  truth 
concerning  the  territorial  question,  it  was  simply 
absurd ;  although  ever  after  the  Governor  certainly 
assumed  such  knowledge  with  the  utmost  confidence 
and  nonchalance.  His  official  report  of  this  visit  con- 
tains the  following  gross  misstatements  : — 

Extracts  from  Despatch.  Remarks  Thereon. 

*  (a)  u  After  the   retirement  (a)  Than   this    paragraph     a 

of  Waterboer  from  the  confe-  more  entire  perversion  of  the 
rence  at  Nooitgedacht  in  August  truth  never  occurred — South 
last,  an  amicable  division  of  the  Adamantia,  including  the  143 
disputed  portion  of  his  country  Free  State  farms,  the  Campbell 
was  arranged  between  the  lands,  and  the  territory  east  of 
Orange  and  Transvaal  Repub-  the  Hart's  River  being  described 
lies,  under  which  the  former  as  "kit"  Waterboer' s  "  coun- 
was  to  retain  the  territory  on  try'"/ — the  fact  that  the  Free 
the  left  bank  of  the  Vaal  River,  State  had  for  so  many  years 
and  the  latter  that  on  the  right  been  in  actual  possession  of 
bank.     .     .     .  "the  left  bank  of  the   Vaal," 

Cornelius  Kok,  Koranas,  and 
Kafirs,  of  "the  right  bank," 
being  ignored ! 


*  Vide  p.  132,  Blue  Book,  "  Correspondence  respecting  the  affairs  of 
the  Cape  of  Good  Hope."— London,  August  17,  1871. 

X 


306 


HOW    HE    MISLED    H.M.'s    GOVERNMENT. 


(b)  "At  (Wood's  Hope  . 
.  .  .  although  in  the  first 
instance  they  (the  diggers) 
paid  for  their  licences  to  the 
Free  State  Commissioner,  all 
but  two  positively  refused  to  do  so 
on  the  occasion  of  his  second  visit. 


(c)  "Had  I  possessed  autho- 
rity from  Her  Majesty's  Go- 
vernment at  once  to  accept  the 
allegiance  of  the  Chief  Water- 
boer  ...  I  have  no  doubt  that 
the  tone  of  the  opposition,  both 
on  the  part  of  the  Free  State 
and  Transvaal  Republic,  would 
have  been  materially  moderated. 
.  .  But,  unfortunately,  your 
Lordship's  despatch  of  17th 
November,  forbade  my  even 
pledging  myself  to  such  a  course, 
and  in  reply  to  the  earnest 
appeals  of  TVaterboer  on  the 
one  hand,  and  thousands  of  Bri- 
tish diggers  on  the  other,  I  could 
only  explain  that  Her  Majesty's 
Government  had  approved  Ge- 
neral Hay's  proclamation.   .  . 


(d)  "  The  language  of  my 
replies  I  need  hardly  say  was  as 
firm  as  in  the  face  of  your  Lord- 
ship's instructions  I  could  ven- 
ture to  make  it ;  for  it  appeared 
to  me  that  the  British  Govern- 
ment had  already  gone  too  far  to 


(b)  This  is  a  most  mean  con- 
cealment of  the  fact  that  the 
diggers  at  Cawood's  Hope, 
being  mostly  British,  were  in- 
stigated and  induced  by  Mr.  John 
Campbell  (Waterboer's  special 
magistrate),  and  by  General 
Hay1 8  notifications,  to  stop  pay- 
ment. 

(c)  Although,  in  replying  to 
Waterboer,  Sir  H.  Barkly 
states  there  were  "  many  thou- 
sands of  British  subjects  now 
resident  in  the  diamond-pro- 
ducing districts  of  your  terri- 
tory," and  in  the  paragraph 
under  review  declares  that 
"thousands  of  British  diggers" 
had  earnestly  appealed  to  him 
to  declare  Waterboer  and  the 
territory  British,  the  truth  is 
that  only  1,756  diggers  ever  ap- 
pealed to  him  out  of  those 
"  thousands  ";  and  their  petitions 
were  to  "  adopt  prompt  mea- 
sures for  the  settlement  of  the 
territorial  questions,"  not  in  any 
case  to  ignore  the  Free  State 
rights,  or  to  oust  its  officials 
from  Pniel,  where  I,  as  one  of 
the  residents,  am  able  to  declare 
that  their  rule  was  most  satis- 
factory and  popular. 

(d)  The  animus  here  displayed 
by  Sir  H.  Barkly  was  noticed  at 
the  beginning  of  this  Chapter. 
The  whole  tenour  of  the  ex- 
tracts quoted  is  plainly  to  iden- 
tify the  cause  of  the  diggers,  the 
"white  immigrants,"  with  that 


HIS   DESPATCH    ANALYZED. 


307 


admit  of  its  ceasing  to  support  the 
cause  of  either  Waterboer  or  the 
diggers,  and  it  was  quite  clear 
that  any  appearance  of  faltering 
on  my  part  would  only  encourage 
the  Free  State  and  Transvaal  Ke- 
public  in  upholding  their  claims.  . 


(e)  u  Negotiations,  however, 
are  still  going  on,  and  I  trust 
may  end  in  some  provisional 
agreement  by  which  any  colli- 
sion between  the  Free  State 
authorities  and  the  British  dig- 
gers at  Puiel  or  Cawood's  Hope 
may  be  averted. 

(/)  "  I  trust,  however,  that 
your  Lordship  will  be  of 
opinion  .  .  .  that  the  period  of 
uncertainty,  both  as  regards  the 
acceptance  of  Waterboer's  alle- 
giance, and  the  system  of  go- 
vernment under  which  the  dia- 
mond fields  are  to  be  placed, 
ought  not  to  be  prolonged  one 
moment  longer  than  is  abso- 
lutely necessary,  and  that  my 
instructions  will  be  so  far  modi- 
fied -without  delay  as,  in  the 
probable  event  of  the  Cape 
Parliament  .  .  agreeing  by  for- 
mal resolutions  to  take  upon 
itself  the  first  responsibility  of 
Government,  with  the  burden  of 
maintaining  any  force  that  may 
be  necessary,  to  admit  of  my  at 
once  adopting  measures  for 
annexing  the  whole  or  such  por- 
tion of  Waterboer's  country  as 
the  Legislature  may  determine." 


of  Waterboer,  and  to  make  it 
appear  that  they  ' '  concurred  in 
desiring  to  be  united  to  the 
Cape  Colony,"  so  as  to  fulfil  the 
third  of  Earl  Kimberley's  condi- 
tions for  annexation.  By  and 
by  (in  our  last  Chapter)  we 
shall  see  that  nothing  would  have 
been  more  distasteful  to  the  diggers. 

(e)  ' '  The  British  diggers  at 
Pniel"  were  then  solely  and  en- 
tirely under  Free  State  rule,  with 
their  full  consent  and  approval. 
No  "  collision"  with  "the  Free 
State  authorities  "  was  remotely 
possible,  except  by  Sir  H.  Bark- 
ly's  uncalled  for  interference. 

(/)  Sir  H.  Barkly  here  in- 
geniously unfolds  the  programme 
of  the  Colonial  Government. 
Assuming,  without  any  autho- 
rity, that  Waterboer  and  the 
diggers  are  unanimous  in  desir- 
ing annexation  to  the  Cape,  and 
that  the  whole  of  the  diamond 
fields  are  Waterboer's,  he  next 
strives  sequentially  to  prove 
that  Earl  Kimberley's  other  two 
conditions  are  fulfilled ;  first, 
that  the  further  extension  of 
the  South  African  Colonies  can- 
not "be  avoided;"  second,  that 
the  Cape  Parliament  would  be 
willing  "  to  take  upon  itself  the 
responsibility  of  governing  the 
diamond  fields,  and  providing 
any  military  force  necessary  to 
retain  possession," — and  compel 
the  submission  of  the  Free 
State  to  the  robbery.  The  Cape 
Parliament  thought  otherwise. 

x  2 


'308  SIR  h.  barkly's  deception  succeeds. 

How  completely  the  despatch  just  noticed,  in 
addition  to  the  previous  productions  of  a  similar  nature, 
succeeded  in  deceiving  the  British  Government,  will 
be  seen  by  Earl  Kimberley's  reply,  who,  in  a  despatch 
dated  "  Downing  Street,  May  18,  1871,"  states*  :— 

"It  is  not  without  reluctance  that  Her  Majesty's  Government 
consents  to  extend  the  British  territory  in  South  Africa,  but  on  a 
full  consideration  of  all  the  circumstances — 

(1)  "The     presence    of    so    large     a     number     of     British 

SUBJECTS  IX  THE  DIAMOND  FIELDS,  THE  PROBABILITY  THAT  THIS 
NUMBER  WILL  RAPIDLY  INCREASE,  THE  DANGER  OF  SERIOUS  DIS- 
TURBANCES ON  THE  NORTHERN  FRONTIER  OF  THE  CAPE  COLONY  IF 
A  REGULAR  AUTHORITY  IS  NOT  ESTABLISHED  WITHOUT  DELAY  IN 
WaTERBOEr's    COUNTRY, 

(2)  "And  the  strong  desire  expressed  both  by  Waterboer 
and  the  new  settlers  that  the  territory  in  question  should 
be  brought  under  British  rule,  they  have  come  to  the  conclu- 
sion that  they  ought  to  advise  Her  Majesty  to  accept  the  cession 
offered  by  Waterboer, 

(3)  "If  the  Cape  Parliament  will  formally  bind  itself  to 
the  conditions  which  you  have  indicated,  namely,  that  the 
Colony  will  undertake  the  responsibility  of  governing  the 
territory  which  is  to  be  united  to  it,  together  with  tne 
entire  maintenance  of  any  force  which  may  be  necessary  for 
the  preservation  of  order  and  the  defence  of  the  new  border,  such 
force  not  to  consist  of  British  troops,  but  to  be  a  force  raised  and 
supported  by  the  Colony. 

"I  accordingly  transmit  to  you  a  Commission  .  .  .  for  the 
annexation  .  .  .  on  the  conditions  therein  mentioned.   ..." 

(1.)  By  the  passage  numbered  one,  Earl  Kimberley, 
converted  by  Sir  H.  Barkly's  persuasive  but  delusive 
representations,  considers  the  first  proviso  of  his  dc- 

*  Vide  p.  172  Blue  Book,  "  Correspondence  respecting  the  affairs  of 
the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,"  London.— August  17,  1871. 


RESULT    OF    SIR    H.    BARKLY'S    DUPLICITY. 


309 


spatch   of    "November  17th,    1870,"     declaring    the 
"Government  have  no  wish,  if  it  can  be  avoided,  to 
extend  the  South  African  Colonies,"   answered  in  the 
negative— "  it  cannot."       Earl  Kimberley  agrees  to 
this  view,  because  (a)  he  has  been  deceived  into  be- 
lieving  that   the  diamond  fields    are    in  Waterboer's 
territory ;  (b)  that  the  "  thousands  of  British  diggers  » 
are  all  in  the  said  territory ;  (c)  and   that  no  regular 
authority    existed  — that    of    the    Free    State,    and 
especially  the  remarkably  popular  administration  of 
Mr.  0.  J.  Truter  at  Pniel,  having  been  carefully  con- 
cealed from  him  ! 

(2.)  By  this  passage  Earl  Kimberley  expresses  his 
betrayal  into  believing  that  his  second  proviso,  if  "  the 

WHITE    IMMIGRANTS     CONCURRED     WITH    THE    NATIVES     IN 

desiring"  annexation,  had  been  answered  affirmatively 
~"  that  they  did  !  "  The  fact  that  only  1,756  diggers 
out  of  10,000  had  been  heard,  and  only  by  the  unreal 
medium  of  complimentary  reception  addresses,  every 
one  of  which  referred  to  a  just  and  satisfactory  settle- 
ment of  the  land  question,  none  to  an  annexation, 
per  fas  et  nefas,  before  that  question  had  been  fairly 
arranged,  being  of  course  either  unknown  to  or 
unappreciated  by    the     Secretary    of  State   for  the 

Colonies ! 

(3.)     By  this  paragraph  of  his  despatch  Earl  Kim- 
berley  still   reserves   his  former   third    proviso— the 

ACCEPTATION  OF  ALL  RESPONSIBILITY  BY  THE  CAPE  ;  THE 
AGREEMENT    TO    ANNEX    BY    ITS    PARLIAMENT.        We     shall 

see  although  Sir  H.  Barkly  proceeded  to  annex  the 
diamond  fields,  that  he  not  only  violated  this  express 
proviso,  but  that  the  Cape  Parliament  deliberately 
refused  to  consent  to  annexation  ! 


310  THE   COMMISSION    TO   ANNEX. 

The  commission  sent  to  Sir  II.  Barkly  was  as 
follows  : — 

"Dated  May  17,  1871. 
"  Commission  for  the  Annexation  of  certain  Dis- 
TitiCTS  north  of  the  Orange  Eiver  in  South 
Africa  to  the  Colony  of  the  Cape   of  Good  (1 
Hope,  and  providing  for  the  Government  of 
those  Districts. 

"  Victoria,  by  the  Grace  of  God,  of  the  United  Kingdom  of 
Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  Queen,  Defender  of  the  Faith,  to  our 
trusty  and  well-beloved  Sir  Henry  Barkly,  Knight  Commander  of 
our  Most  Honourable  Order  of  the  Bath,  greeting : 

"  Whereas  divers  of  our  subjects  have  settled  in  districts  north  of 
the  Orange  Eiver  in  South  Africa,  and  alleged  to  belong  to  certain 
native  chiefs  and  tribes :  and  whereas  it  is  expedient,  with  the 
consent  of  such  chiefs  and  tribes  (1)  and  of  the  Legislature  of 
our  Colony  of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  to  make  provision  for 
the  Government  of  certain  of  such  districts  as  part  of  our  said 
Colony:  Now  we  do  by  this  our  Commission  under  our  sign  manual 
and  signet  authorize  you  the  said  Sir  Henry  Barkly  by  Proclama- 
tion under  your  hand  and  the  public  seal  of  our  said  Colony  to 
declare  that,  after  a  day  to  be  therein  mentioned,  so  much  of  such 
districts  as  to  you,  after  due  consideration,  shall  seem  fit,  shall  be 
annexed  to  and  form  part  of  our  Dominion  and  of  our  said  Colony : 
And -we  do  hereby  constitute  and  appoint  you  to  be  thereupon 
Governor  of  the  same  (2),  provided  that  you  issue  no  such  Pro- 
clamation UNLESS  YOU  HAVE  FIRST  ASCERTAINED  THAT  THE  NATIVE 
CHIEFS     AND     TRIBES  CLAIMING    THE   DISTRICT   SO    TO    BE   ANNEXED  ARE 

really  entitled  thereto,  and  consent  to  such  annexation  (3)  ;  nor 
until  TnE  Legislature  of  our  said  Colony  shall  have  provided  by 
law  that  the  same  shall,  on  the  day  aforesaid,  become  part  of  our 
Baid  Colony,  and  subject  to  the  laws  in  force  therein.  And  for  so 
doing  this  shall  be  your  warrant. 

"  Given  at  our  Court  at  Windsor  the  Seventeenth  day  of  May, 
One  Thousand  Eight  Hundred  and  Seventy-one,  in  the  Thirty- 
fourth  year  of  our  reign. 

"  By  Her  Majesty's  command. 

"  KlMBERLEY." 


ITS    SPECIFIC    STIPULATIONS. 


311 


(1.)  (2.)  (3.)  These  stipulations  are  very  distinct 
and  specific.  Unless  they  were  all  three  first  ful- 
filled, the  Commission  could  not  legally  be  put  in 
force.  We  shall  see  what  unlawful  use  Sir  H.  Barldy 
made  of  it. 


312  sir  H.  baIkly's  tergiversations. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

Consummation  of  the  Colonial  Government's  Scheme,. 
Invasion  of  the  Free  State,  and  Forcible  Seizure 
of  the  Diamond  Fields.  The  Cape  Parliament 
repudiates  and  rejects  the  Annexation  :  the 
Governor's  consequent  Plot  to  make  the  Cap- 
tured Territory  a  Crown  Colony.  . 

Sir  H.  Barkly's  Tergiversations. — Resolutions  adopted  by  the 
Cape  Parliament,  and  their  Perversion  by  Sir  H.  Barely. 
— How  the  British  Government  was  Deluded. — Earl  Kim- 
berley's  Reply,  Reiterating  the  Conditions  on  which  the 
Diamond  Fields  were  alone  to  be  Annexed. — Violation  of 
those  Conditions,  Hostile  Invasion  of  the  Free  State,  and 
Forcible  Seizure  and  Annexure  of  its  Diamond  Fields  by 
Sir  H.  Barely. — Protest  by  the  Orange  Free  State 
Government. — Proof  that  the  Territory  so  Seized  belonged 
to  the  Free  State. — Rejection  by  the  Cape  Parliament  of 
Sir  H.  Barkly's  Bill  to  Legalize  and  Endorse  the  Annexa- 
tion.— The  Colonial  Secretary's  Mistatements.  —  The 
Seizure  of  the  Diamond  Fields  an  Act  of  Brigandage. — 
The  Attempted  Annexure  to  the  Cape  having  proved  a 
Fiasco,  Sir  H.  Barely  proposes  to  make  the  Territory 
Plundered  (the  Diamond  Fields)  a  Separate  Crown 
Colony. 

After  repeated  and  careful  perusal  of  the  whole  of 
the  very  voluminous  correspondence,  official  and  non- 
official,  relating  to  the  controversy  between  the  British, 
Colonial,  and  Free  State  Governments,  Waterboer's 
claims,  and  the  annexation  of  the  diamond  fields,  I 


RESUME    OF    THE    GOVERNOR'S    MALVERSATION.       313" 

find  it  utterly  impossible  to  arrive  at  any  other  con- 
clusion than  that  Sir  Henry  Barkly,  supported,  or 
guided,  by  his  Executive  Council,  deliberately  diso- 
beyed and  violated  the  three  distinct  conditions  upon 
which  alone  he  was  given  authority  to  annex. 

In  the  first  place  I  accuse  him  of  not  making  any 
effort,  subsequent  to  the  receipt  of  the  conditional 
commission,  to  u first  ascertain  that"  (Waterboer)  "  claim- 
ing the  district  so  to  be  annexed"  (was)  u  really  entitled 
thereto."  Instead  of  attempting  to  fulfil  this  solemn 
obligation,  he  acted  upon  his  own  hasty  and  foregone 
conclusion,  expressed  before  he  had  been  more  than 
a  few  days  in  the  Colony,  *  by  which  he  accepted  the 
wrongful  policy  of  his  predecessor  ;  possessing  at  the 
time  (as  we  have  seen  by  his  own  admission,  in  Chap- 
ter XIII.)  only  one  document  in  support  of  Waterboer's 
case ;  although,  in  a  letter  to  President  Brand,  dated  f 
"  Government  House,  January,  2,  1871,"  he  had 
declared  the  subject  u  a  question,  the  equitable  solution  of 
tvhich  must  from  its  very  nature  depend  upon  the  weight  of 
the  documentary  evidence  tvhich  can  be  adduced"  ! 

Secondly,  I  unhesitatingly  assert  that,  instead  of 
first  obtaining  the  "  consent"  of  the  Cape  Parliament, 
and  waiting  until  it  had  u provided  by  law"  for  the 
annexation,  he,  by  misrepresentations,  obtained  only 
certain  "resolutions"  to  exercise  temporary  jurisdic- 
tion over  "  such  part  of  the  diamond  fields  as  belongs 
to  the  Griquas  under  Waterboer " ;  that,  instead  of  so 
doing,  he  proceeded,  not  to  exercise  temporary  juris. 


*  Vide  Sir  H.  Barkly's  despatches  of  January  11th,  23rd,  and  February 
1st,  pp.  120,  127,  and  107,  Blue  Book,  "Correspondence  respecting  the 
affairs  of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope."— London,  August  17,  1871. 

t  Vide  d.  Ill,  Ibid. 


314  THE    CAPE    PARLIAMENT'S    "  RESOLUTION. " 

diction,  but  to  misapply  his  commission,  and  abuse  the 
meaning  and  intent  of  the  said  "  resolutions,"  by  for- 
mally and  forcibly  annexing,  not  only  Griqualand 
West,  but  the  whole  of  the  diamond  fields,  including 
the  extensive  tract  of  Free  State  territory,  containing 
143  Free  State  farms,  cut  off  by  the  concocted  line 
from  Ramah   via  David's  Graf  to  Platberg. 

The  first  resolution,  carried  only  by  a  narrow 
majority  of  five,  was  agreed  to  by  the  House  ot 
Assembly  on  the  19th  July,  1871.* 

The  original  motion,  as  amended,  was  then  read,  viz  :  '  That,  in 
the  opinion  of  this  Committee,  it  is  desirable  and  needful,  as  well 
for  the  interests  of  this  Colony  as  with  a  view  to  the  maintenance  of 
peace  and  order  on  our  borders,  that  such  part  of  the  territories 
commonly  designated  "  The  diamond  fields"  as  belongs  to  the  Griquas 
of  West  Griqualand,  under  the  government  of  Captain  Nicholas  Water - 
ooer,  or  to  other  native  chiefs  and  people  living  in  the  vicinity  of  the 
said  Griquas,  should,  in  accordance  with  the  desire  expressed  by  the 
large  number\  of  British  subjects  now  located  there,  and  with  the 
sanction  of  Her  Majesty  the  Queen,  and  the  consent  of  the  said 
Griquas  and  other  natives,  be  annexed  to  the  Colony.  And  this 
Committee  is  further  of  opinion  that,  if  measures  having  for  their 
object  the  annexation  of  the  territories  aforesaid,  and  the  good 
government  of  the  people  resident  therein,  are  introduced 
into  the  House  of  Assembly  by  His  Excellency  the  Governor, 
it  is  expedient  that  the  House  should  give  its  most  favourable 
attention  thereto,  and  should  do  what  in  it  lies  to  make  proper  pro- 
vision for  the  government  and  defence  of  the  said  territory,  and  for 
meeting  the  expenditure  that  may  be  occasioned  thereby.' 

il  This  motion  was  put  and  agreed  to." 

This   resolution    is    entirely  hypothetical ;    but    it 


*  Vide  p.  366,  "  Votes  and  Proceedings  of  the  House  of  Assembly ," 
No.  46—1871. 

f  The  fact  that  only  1,756  diggers  had,  by  a  complimentary  address, 
out  of  many  thousands,  "  expressed  "  any  such  "  desire"  seems  to  have 
been  suppressed 


A    MAJORITY    OF  "  ONE  "  PASSES    THE  "  KESOLUTION."  315 

points  out  "  such  part  of  the  diamond  fields  as 
should  be  annexed/'  and  that  if  measures  having  for 
their  object  the  annexation  are  introduced  into  the 
House  of  Assembly,  they  should  "  receive  its  most 
favourable  attention." 

It  was  put  before  the  Legislative  Council  on  the 
26th  of  July ;  on  the  28th,  Mr.  De  Roubaix,  Chairman 
of  the  Committee,  proposed  as  an  amendment* : 

"That,  in  the  opinion  of  this  Council,  it  is  desirable  that  the 
•diamond  fields  should  be  annexed  to  this  Colony,  but  that  such  an- 
nexation, should  not  be  carried  out  until  the  question  of  disputed  territory 
should  have  been  finally  settled.  .   .   ." 

"Mr.  DeSmidt  observed  that  the  Council,  in  making  provision 
for  the  defence  of  the  diamond  fields,  was  doing  that  which  was  tanta- 
mount to  a  declaration  of  war  against  the  Free  State.  .  .   ." 

"  The  amendment  was  then  put  and  negatived,  on  a  division,  by 
nine  contents  to  ten  malcontents." 

By  only  one  vote  the  resolution  which  had  been  car- 
ried by  only  five  in  the  House  of  Assembly  was  agreed 
to.  In  acknowledging  the  receipt  of  an  address  from 
both  Houses  of  Parliament  concurring  in  the  resolution 
•on  the  31st  of  July,  Sir  H.  Barkly  made  the  following 
extraordinary  and  Jesuitical  reply  considering  his  past, 
present,  and  future  action.*)* : — 

"As  the  question  of  native  titles  to  lands  .  .  .  awaits  the 
award  of  his  Excellency  Lieut. -Governor  Keate  .  .  .  and  as  the 
■claims  (?)  preferred  by  the  Orange  Free  State  to  certain  portions  of 
West  Griqualand  (?)...  still  form  the  subject  of  correspondence 
.  .  .  the  Governor  fears  that  it  would  be  premature  to  attempt  to 
establish  by  law  a  regular  form  of  Government  in  a  country  of 
which  the  boundaries    are  yet    so  undefined.  .  .  .  The  Governor 


*  Vide  p.  195,  "  Debates  in  the  Legislative  Council." — Vol.  iv.  1871. 
f  Vide  p.  433,  "  Votes  and  Proceedings  of  the  House  of  Assembly.'* 
.No.  54—1871. 


•JIG  SIB  II.   ijarkly's  diplomacy. 

must,  therefore,  defer  till  next  Session  any  recommendations  as  to- 
legislating  for  this  object,  and  endeavour,  meanwhile,  by  employing 
such  officials  as  may  be  found  requisite,  and  with  the  aid  of  a  suffi- 
cient body  of  the  Frontier  Police,  for  the  preservation  of  order,  to- 
conduct  the  internal  administration  of  any  territory  the  charge  of 
which  may  happen  to  devolve  upon  his  hands." 

The  fact  that  an  irregular  u  form  of  Government," 
without  "  law,"  had  already  been  established  over  Free 
State  territory,  by  the  appointment  of  British  magis- 
trates, was  carefully  kept  in  the  back  ground.  How 
is  the  above  declaration  to  his  Parliament  to  be  recon- 
ciled with  the  following  ultimatum  Sir  H.  Barkly  had 
sent  off  to  the  President  of  the  Free  State  in  a  de- 
spatch dated  July  18th  ? 

li  I  feel  bound  *  to  notify  to  your  Honour  that  I  hold  a  commis- 
sion under  the  Eoyal  Sign  Manual,  authorizing  me  to  accept  the 
cession  of  territory  offered  by  Captain  Waterboer,  and  to  annex  the 
same  to  this  colony,  with  such  boundaries  as  I  may  see  fit  to  pro- 
claim." 

Besides  its  totally  opposite  character  to  the  mode- 
rate policy  expressed  to  the  Cape  Parliament,  this 
arrogant  assertion  of  Sir  H.  Barkly's,  by  reason  of  the 
entire  suppression  of  the  conditions  on  which  alone 
any  such  authority  was  given  him  by  the  Commission, 
is  not  only  a  deliberate  suppressio  veri,  but  an  equally 
intentional  suggestio  falsi. 

lt  I  should  be  extremely  reluctant,  irrevocably,  to  fix  these  boun- 
daries," adds  the  Governor,  with  exquisite  irony,  "  in  direct  opposi- 
tion to  the  claims  set  up  by  the  Orange  Free  State,  so  long  as  the 
slightest  chance  exists  of  an  amicable  adjustment,  either  by  means  of 
arbitration  or  otherwise,  and  I  shall  tvait>  therefore,  for  a  reasonable 
period,  your  Honour's  reply  to  this  communication." 


*  Vide  p.  16,  Blue  Book,  "  Further  correspondence  respecting  the 
affairs  of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope," — London,  February  6,  1872. 


FURTHER   DUPLICITY.  317 

Considering  that  Earl  Kimberley  had  been  provoked 
to  refuse  the  Free  State  Government  any  voice  in  the 
interpretation  and  construction  of  the  Treaty  or  Con- 
vention to  which  it  was  the  second  party;  that  the 
foreign  arbitration  (the  only  just  and  impartial  method, 
and  that  which  is  countenanced  by  international  law) 
as  proposed  by  President  Brand,  had  been  peremp- 
torily refused ;  and  that  Sir  H.  Barkly  betrayed  his 
gross,  illogical,  but  interested  partizanship  in  favour 
of  Waterboer  by  terming  the  defence  of  its  actual  posses- 
sions u  the  claims  set  up  by  the  Orange  Free  State  "  ;  we 
leave  our  readers  to  judge  as  to  what  chance  existed  of 
"an  amicable  adjustment,"  and  as  to  who  was  to  blame. 

But  the  reason  Sir  H.  Barkly  gives  in  this  ultimatum 
for  delay,  and  the  reason  which  he  gave  to  the  Cape 
Parliament  for  delaying  the  introduction  of  measures 
having  for  their  object  the  required  "consent"  and 
a  provision  by  law,"  for  the  annexation  of  "  such  part 
of  the  diamond  fields  as  belonged  to  Waterboer,"  are 
both  false.  This  following  quotation  contains  the  real 
reason  why  he  delayed  proceeding  just  then  to  ex- 
tremities with  the  Free  State ;  and  why,  instead  of  then 
endeavouring  to  obtain  the  consent  of  Parliament  to  a 
Bill  sanctioning  his  hostile  policy  towards  the  Free 
State,  and  agreeing  to  the  conditions  required  prelimi- 
nary to  annexation,  he  also  delayed  that  matter.* 

Extract  from  the  Minutes  of  the  Proceedings  of  the  Executive 
Council,  dated  Government  House,  July  29,  1871. 

"  An  Address,  No.  24  of  the  24th  rnstant,  from  the  Honourable 
the  Legislative  Council,  expressing  its  concurrence  in  the  resolutions 
adopted  by  the  Honourable  the  House  of  Assembly  upon  the  subject 


*  Vide  p.  7,  Blue  Book,  "  Further    correspondence  respecting  the 
affairs  of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope."— London,  February  6th,  1872. 


318  PROOF    OF   SIR   II.    BARKLY'S    DUPLICITY. 

of  the  diamond  fields, having  been  laid  upon  the  table,  His  Excellency 
the  Governor  solicits  the  advice  of  the  Council  as  to  the  propriety  of 
now  sending  down  a  Bill  for  annexing  the  territories  in  question  ;  or  as 
to  whether  it  might  not  he  more  prudent — looking  to  the  majorities  by  which 
the  resolutions  had  been  carried  in  the  two  Houses,  to  the  departure  of  some 
members  who  voted  in]  those  majorities  as  well  as  to  the  late  period 
of  the  Session — to  delay  the  step  till  tl.onext  Session  of  Parliament 
and  to  remain  content,  in  the  meantime,  with  obtaining  an  expres- 
sion of  its  approval  of  the  retention  upon  the  fields  of  a  detachment 
of  the  Frontier  Police ;  and  of  the  adoption  of  such  other  measures 
connnectecl  with  the  administration  of  justice,  and  the  preservation 
of  peace  and  order,  as  circumstances  may  from  time  to  time  demand. 

"  As  the  Council  believes  that  there  would  not,  at  present,  be  the 
slightest  hope  of  carrying  such  a  Bill  through  either  House,  and  is,  indeed, 
apprehensive  that  any  attempt  of  the  kind  might  frustrate  the  very 
objects  contemplated  by  the  Government,  it  strongly  recommends  the 
adoption  of  the  second  alternative  suggested  by  His  Excellency,. 
and  that  legislation  be  deferred  until  next  Session. 

"  His  Excellency  the  Governor  concurs  in  the  views  expressed  by 
the  Council,  and  it  is  ordered  accordingly." 

What  "  objects"  were  "contemplated  by  the 
Government "  ?  To  the  Parliament  the  Governor  had 
declared  that  his  only  object  in  delaying  legislation  on 
the  subject  was  because  the  boundary  question  was  un- 
settled, thereby  implying  that  his  wish  was  similar  to 
that  of  the  House,  viz.,  that  no  injury  should  be  done 
to  the  Free  State,  and  that  annexation  should  be 
delayed  until  an  amicable  adjustment  of  the  boundaries 
had  first  been  arrived  at.  To  President  Brand  he  had 
penned  a  very  different  intimation.  Is  it  not  true  that 
the  real  "objects  of  the  Government"  were  in  accor- 
dance with  that  threat  "  to  annex  the  cession  of  terri- 
tory offered  by  Waterboer  with,"  in  order  to  obtain 
the  diamond  fields,  "such  boundaries  as  I  (Sir  H. 
Barklv)  may  see  fit  to  proclaim  "  ?  We  shall  see  that 
they  were;  that,  without  waiting  for  either  the  "con- 


THE    LATE    CAPE    GOVERNMENT'S    POLICY.  319s 

sent "  or  formal  acceptation  of  and  agreement  to 
annexation  "  by  law,"  by  the  Cape  Parliament,  he 
proceeded  to  put  his  threat  to  President  Brand  in 
execution. 

Being  afraid,  from  the  bare  majority  of  only  one  vote, 
by  which  even  the  fair,  impartial,  and  hypothetical 
"  resolutions"  had  been  but  just  dragged  through  the 
Houses,  that  any  such  Bill  as  that  embracing  their 
"  objects  "  would  be  certainly  rejected,  the  Government 
cunningly  obtained  a  further  "  resolution"  from  both 
Houses  of  Parliament,  by  acting  upon  and  far  beyond 
the  terms  of  which  (even  proceeding  so  far  as  to  annex 
the  whole  of  Waterboer's  country,  together  with  all 
territory  his  unsupported  ipse  dixit  claimed  from  the 
Free  State)  Sir  H.  Barkly  and  his  colleagues  tried  to 
so  far  commit  Parliament  to  their  policy,  a  objects," 
and  action,  as  to  ensure  an  approval  and  endorsement 
of  the  annexation — an  unlawful  postliminious  legaliza- 
tion of  the  originally  unauthorized  and  illegal  act 
as  the  unavoidable  consequence  of  an  accomplished 
fact.  We  shall  see  that  the  members  of  the  Exe- 
cutive Council  very  much  deceived  themselves  as  to 
the  docility  of  Parliament,  and  the  result  they  antici- 
pated. 

The  last  and  most  fatal  of  the  " resolutions"  was  very 
quietly  moved,  in  a  scantily  attended  House,  upon  the 
5th  of  August,  1871,  by  Mr.  Southey,  the  Colonial 
Secretary,  Waterboer's  principal  advocate,  and,  as  is 
well  known,  from  certain  private  motives,  a  bitter 
enemy  of  the  Orange  Free  State ;  indeed,  apropos  to 
the  insinuation,  it  is  also  equally  notorious  that  Sir  H. 
Barkly  is  alleged  to  have  an  even  greater  joersonal 
cause    for    his    ruthless     and     apparently    insensate 


320  THE   SECOND    "RESOLUTION." 

animosity ;  but  it  is  a  subject  wc  may  not  further 
ventilate. 

The  Colonial  Secretary*  moved  :  '  That,  pending  the  adjustment 
of  the  boundary  disputes,  and  the  passing  of  a  law  for  the  annexa- 
tion of  the  diamond  fields  to  this  Colony,  this  Committee  is  of 
opinion  that  the  Governor  should  be  requested  to  adopt  such  measures 
as  may  appear  to  him  to  be  necessary  and  practicable  for  the  mainte- 
nance of  order  among  the  diggers  and  other  inhabitants  of  that 
territory,  as  well  as  for  the  collection  of  revenue  and  the  administra- 
tion of  justice.'  " 

On  the  7th  of  August  f  this  "resolution"  also 
passed  the  Legislative  Council. 

In  the  words  of  Mr.  Godlonton,  the  members,  no 
doubt,  one  and  all,  "  regarded  this  as  merely  carrying 
into  effect  the  resolution  which  had  passed  the  Council." 

"  Dr.  White  seconded  the  motion.  He  said  the  receipt  of  this 
message  had  confirmed  him  in  the  opinion  he  had  previously  ex- 
pressed, that  there  was  no  serious  intention  of  annexing  the  diamond  fields 
.  .  .  The  message  had  relieved  his  mind." 

"The  Treasurer-General  remarked  that  .  .  .  the  resolution 
was  intended  to  strengthen  the  hands  of  the  Government,  while  the 
question  of  annexation  was  still  pending" 

Amidst  such  views  and  interpretations  the  "  reso- 
lution "  was  agreed  to. 

If  it  had  clearly  and  distinctly  set  forth  the  fact  on 
which  it  was  based,  namely,  the  express  limitation  by 
which  all  annexation,  &c,  was  to  be  confined  to 
u  such  part  of  the  diamond  fields  as  belongs  to  Water- 
bocr,"  no  one  could  have  had  cause  to  demur,  nor  could 
Sir  H.  Barkly  have  tried  to  make  it  a  justification 

*  Vide  p.  479,  "  Votes  and  Proceedings  of  the  House  of  Assembly." 
No.  59-1871. 

f  Vide  p.  229,  "  Debates  in  the  Legislative  Council."  Vol.  iv.,  1871 


MISPLACED  CONFIDENCE.  321 

for  his  subsequent  misdeeds.  Virtually,  however,  by 
a  loose,  or  more  likely  intentional  verbiage,  and  taking 
this  resolution  alone,  it  endorsed  the  existing  presence 
of  British  magistrates  on  Free  State  territory,  and  coun- 
tenanced an  even  further  extension  of  that  same  "  irregu- 
lar Government  "  over  the  whole  of  the  diamond  fields. 
Four  days  later,  in  his  prorogation  speech,  Sir  H. 
Barkly  stated : 

"Of  the  other  questions*  .  .  .  that  of  annexing  those  parts  of 
the  diamond  fields  which  belong  to  the  Griquas  .  .  .  who  have 
petitioned  to  be  received  as  British  subjects,  was  by  far  the  most 
important  .  .  .  and  I  thank  you  especially  for  the  confidence  you 
have  been  pleased  to  repose  in  myself  personally,  by  authorizing 
me,  in  anticipation  of  the  passing  of  an  Act  for  regulating  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  territories  thus  to  be  added,  to  adopt  such  measures  as 
may  be  necessary  for  the  maintenance  of  order,  the  collection  of 
revenue,  and  the  administration  of  justice  therein." 

Well,  it  was  a  case  of  misplaced  "confidence." 
The  Governor's  preconceived  determination  to  annex 
the  diamond  fields  here  appears,  although  he  was 
only  authorized  by  the  "  resolutions  "  adopted  "  to 
maintain  order"  &c.  That  sentence — "in  anticipation  of 
the  passing  of  an  Act  for  regulating  the  Government" — 
bears  a  sinister  significance  ;  for,  whereas  the  Act  yet 
to  be  passed  was  for  the  express  purpose  of  "  con- 
senting "  to  annexation  of  the  diamond  fields  at  all, 
and  "  by  law  "  establishing  that  "  consent,"  and 
fulfilling  the  three  special  conditions  assigned  by 
Earl  Kimberley,  Sir  H.  Barkly  here  assumes  that 
annexation  to  as  consented  to,  and  the  required  Act  was 
only  "  for  regulating  the  Government." 

Moreover,    he  was   really  only  authorized  to  take 

*  Vide  p.  257,  "  Debates  in  the  Legislative  Council,"  Vol.  iv.,  1871. 

Y 


322    NO    PART   OF   THE    DIAMOND    FIELDS    WATERBOER's. 

"measures  for  the  maintenance  of  order,"  &c.,  at 
u  such  part  of  the  diamond  fields  as  belongs  to  Water- 
boer." Where,  how,  and  by  what  authority  ivas  he  ever 
authorized  to  seize  upon  and  annex  "  such  part  as  belongs" 
to  the  Free  State  ? 

Especially  is  the  fact  to  be  deplored  by  lovers 
of  justice,  that  the  Cape  Parliament  had  so  con- 
fused and  inaccurate  an  idea  of  where  the  diamond 
fields  were  situated  as  to  be  made  believe  that  any 
part  belonged  to  Waterboer.  Klip  Drift  and  Hebron,  on 
the  north  or  right  bank  of  the  Vaal,  were  "  diggings  in" 
territory  belonging  to  Koranas  and  Kafirs — as  we  have 
seen  by  the  declaration  in  Chapter  I.  All  the  rest  of 
the  diamond  fields  did  then  belong  to  the  Free  State. 
It  is  a  great  pity  that  the  point  involved  by  this  word 
"  belongs  "  was  not  noticed  at  all.  Even  admitting  for 
a  moment,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  Waterboer 
may  once  have  possessed  the  lands  in  question,  at  that 
time  they  did  not  "  belong  "  to  him  ;  for,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  as  an  existing  optical  proof  to  the  contrary,  they 
did  and  could  only  belong  to  the  State  then  and  for  at 
least  the  last  twenty  years  actually  in  bona  fide  possession 
of  them.  The  postulatory  claim  put  forth  by  Waterboer 
could  not  make  them  belong  to  him ;  it  was  first 
necessary  for  him  to  prove  his  claim  legally,  and 
then  to  oust  the  Free  State  Government  and  enter 
into  possession.  If  one  man  says  that  he  has  a  right 
to  some  other  man's  de  facto  property,  he  may  say  that 
it  ought,  also  to  be  in  his  possession  ;  but  he  cannot, 
according  to  Lindley  Murray,  say  that  it  does  actually 
then  at  the  present  time  "belong"  to  him. 

How  Sir  H.  Barkly  wilfully  misinterpreted  the 
"resolutions"  of  the  Cape  Parliament  is  fully  proved 


SIR   H.    BARKLY    PERVERTS    THE    "  RESOLUTIONS."  323 

by  the  following  extracts  from  his  report  to  Earl 
Kimberley,  and  a  dispatch  to  Waterboer,  immediately 
after  the  prorogation ;  by  his  annexation  of  the  whole 
of  the  Free  State  diamond  fields,  during  the  recess ; 
and  by  the  repudiation  of  that  act,  and  a  distinct 
refusal  and  rejection  of  the  Annexation  Bill  by  both 
Houses  of  Parliament  during  the  next  Session. 

On  the  loth  of  August,  in  a  despatch  to  Earl 
Kimberley,  he  says  : 

"  Your  Lordship  will,*  I  feel  confident,  regard  the  second  address 
thus  unanimously  adopted  by  both  Houses,  authorizing  me,  pending 
the  passing  of  a  law  for  its  annexation,  to  exercise  sovereign  juris- 
diction over  the  territory  belonging  to  Waterboer  and  other  native 

Chiefs,    AS    A    SUBSTANTIAL    COMPLIANCE    WITH   THE    REQUIREMENTS   OF 

Her  Majesty's  Government,  and  will  sanction  and  approve  such 
steps  as  I  may,  upon  consultation  with  the  Executive  Council,  deem 
it  advisable  to  take  for  carrying  out  the  request  of  the  Cape  Parlia- 
ment." 

That  the  Cape  Parliament  ever  gave  or  intended 
any  such  "  substantial  compliance,"  or  made  any  such 
•"  request/'  is,  as  we  have  already  seen,  utterly  false. 
This  is  proved  by  the  subsequent  repudiation  at  the 
first  possible  and  available  opportunity. 

In  a  despatch  to  Waterboer,  dated  "  Cape  Town, 
August  16,  1871,"  Sir  H.  Barkly  describes  pretty 
clearly  what  "  such  stcj)s  "  were : — 

"  It  is  my  intention,*  as  early  as  may  be  after  my  receipt  of  your 
answer  to  this  communication,  to  proclaim,  in  Her  Majesty's  name, 
her   assent  to    your  proposal,  .  .  .  and  by  such   proclamation  to 


*  Vide  p.  4,  Blue   Book,  "  Further  correspondence    respecting  the 
affairs  of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope." — London,  February  6,  1872. 

*  Vide  p.  19,    Ibid. 

Y    2 


;>24:  KARL    KIMBERLEY    DECEIVED. 

declare  that  you  and  your  people  shall  be  and  be  deemed  thence- 
forward British  subjects,  and  your  and  their  territory  shall  bo  and 
be  deemed  British  territory,  pending  the  annexation  of  such  territory 
to  this  Colony." 

The  Cape  Parliament  never  authorized  any  such 
"proclamation;"  nor  did  the  British  Government, 
unless  the  said  Parliament  had  first  authorized  it,  and 
agreed  to  the  three  conditions  in  Earl  Kimberley's  de- 
spatch of  May  the  18th,  which  conditions  are  also  set 
forth  in  the  commission  quoted  in  cxtenso  at  the  end  of 
Chapter  XIII. 

That  Earl  Kimbcrlcy  was  entirely  deceived  in  the 
matter  is  evident  from  his  reply  : — 

"  Downing  Street,  October,  2,  1871. 
"I  have  received*  your  despatch  of  August  15,  reporting  the 
result  of  the  introduction  into  the  Cape  Parliament  of  resolutions 
affirming  the  expediency  of  annexing  the  diamond  fields,"  (what 
about  "such  part  as  belongs  to  Waterboer  "  ?)  "  and  pledging  the 
Colony  to  make  provision  for  the  government  and  defence  of  the  territory 
.  .  .  The  second,  in  conjunction  with  the  former  resolutions,  will, 
no  doubt,  as  indicating  the  intentions  of  the  Cape  Parliament, 
materially  strengthen  your  hands  in  endeavouring  to  remedy  the 
inconveniences  which  may  arise  from  the  postponement  of  the  Bill, 
although:  the  second  Besolutions  do  aor  in  themselves  amount 

TO    A    FORMAL  COMPLIANCE    WITH    THE    CONDITIONS    LAID    DOWN    IN  MY 

Despatch,  No.  78,  or  May  18." 

Sir  II.  Barkly  chose  to  think  differently,  and  act 
accordingly.  But  the  Cape  Parliament  then  refused 
"  a  formal  compliance  "  with  those  u  conditions,"  and 
so  threw  the  entire  responsibility  for  the  unlawful 
annexation — the  legal  "robbery" — of  the  Free  State 

*  Vide  p.  8,  Blue  Book,  "  Further  correspondence  respecting  the 
affairs  of  the  Cape  of*  Good  Hope."— London,  February  6,  1872. 


ILLEGAL   ANNEXATION.  -325 

diamond   fields    upon   the    Governor    and   the    other 
members  of  their  "  irresponsible  "  Government. 

On  the  27th  of  October,  1871,  Sir  H.  Barkly  pro- 
ceeded by  proclamation  to  annex  Waterboer's  terri- 
tory, together  with  the  toholc  of  the  diamond  fields, 
to  the  Cape  Colony,  including,  of  course,  South 
Aclamantia,  with  the  143  Free  State  farms.  In  this 
unauthorized  proclamation,  Sir  H.  Barkly  explains  the 
"  steps"  by  which  he  perverted  the  purpose  and  mean- 
ing of  the  Cape  Parliament's  "  resolutions"  : — 

"And,  whereas'"  it  is  necessary  for  the  purpose  of  so  'maintain- 
ing* order,  collecting  revenue,  and  administering  justice  '  in  the  said 
territory,  that  I  should,  in  Her  Majesty's  name,  grant  the  prayer  ot 
the  said  Chief,  Nicholas  Waterboer,  and  his  said  people,  and  assume 
sovereign  jurisdiction  in  and  over  the  said  territory  : 

"Now,  therefore,  I  do  hereby  proclaim  and  declare  that  from  and 
after  the  publication  hereof,  the  said  Nicholas  Waterboer,  and  the 
said  tribe  of  the  Grriquas  of  Griqualand  West  shall  be,  and  shall  be 
takea  to  be,  for  all  intents  and  purposes,  British  subjects,  and  the 
territory  of,  or  belonging  to,  the  said  Nicholas  Waterboer,  and  the 
said  tribe  shall  be  taken  to  be  British  territory." 

The  false  premises  on  which  this  proclamation  is 
constructed  have  already  been  described  in  other 
instances.  That  it  was  "  necessary  for  the  purpose  of 
maintaining  order,"  &c,  over  "  such  part  of  the 
diamond  fields  as  belongs  to  Waterboer"  was  a 
condition  absolutely  null  and  void;  for,  as  we  have 
repeatedly  proved,  at  that  time  not  one  foot  of  those 
diamondiferous  regions  did  belong  to  him.  Then 
joerfect  law  and  order,  administration  of  justice,  and 
collection  of  revenue  (though  not  into  the  Colonia? 
coffers,  which  was  the  main  object  and  desire  of  the 


*   Vide  p.  33,  Blue  Book,  "  Further    correspondence  respecting  the 
affairs  of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope" — London,  February  6,  1872. 


326  GOVEENOE  BAEKLY's  DUPLICITY. 

Cape  Government)  did  already  exist  throughout  the 
diamond  fields.  At  Cawood's  Hope,  Klip-Drift, 
Hebron,  and  such  diggings  as  were  on  the  north  or 

right  bank  of  the  Vaal,  the  usurped  jurisdiction  of  the 
special  magistrate  appointed  by  Waterboer  and  General 
Hay  prevailed;  whilst  at  Pniel,  Du  Toit's  Pan,  De 
Beer's,  Bultfontein,  and  such  diggings  as  existed  on 
the  south,  left,  or  Free  State  bank  of  the  Vaal,  a  most 
popular  and  effective  jurisdiction  was  exercised  by  the 
officers  appointed  by  the  Government  of  the  Orange 
Free  State. 

Why  does  Sir  H.  Barkly  conceal  the  truth — the 
universally  acknowledged  fact — that  it  was  in  order 
to  "jump"  (as  the  diggers  all  expressed  it),  steal,  and 
by  force  seize  upon  Pniel,  Cawood's  Hope,  and,  above 
all,  the  lately-discovered  and  richest  of  all  the  diamond 
fields,  the  famous  "dry  diggings"  of  Du  Toit's  Pan, 
Bultfontein,  and  De  Beer's,  that  the  Colonial  Govern- 
ment issued  that  illegal  Proclamation?  that  it  was 
especially  in  order  to  include  these  three  last-named 
places— all  old  Free  State  farms — that  the  line  from 
Ramali  via  David's  Graf  to  Platberg  was  proclaimed, 
and  a  most  unwarrantable  aggression,  a  most  bandit- 
like and  cowardly  violation  of  special  treaty  and  inter- 
national law  perpetrated  at  the  expense  of  the  Free 
State  ? 

The  diggings  at  Bultfontein  also  extend  upon  the 
adjoining  farm,  "  Alexandersfontcin,"  for  which  a 
British  land  certificate  was  given,  as  appears  in  thr 
books  of  the  Land  Register  during  the  time  of  the 
Orange  River  Sovereignty,  on  the  "  16th  September, 
1848!"  Where,  then,  was  Waterboer?  From  the 
period  of  the  abandonment  of  the  British  Sovereignty 


To  face  Page  327,  cfcap.  XIV. 


TERRITORY    SEIZED    BY    SIR    H.    BARKLY.  327 

this  and  the  other  farms  have  known  no  other  Govern- 
ment, from  1854  until  the  forcible  seizure  by  Sir  H. 
Barkly,  in  November,  1871,  than  that  of  the  Orange 
Free  State  ! 

The  boundaries  proclaimed  by  Sir  H.  Barkly  as 
those  of  "  Grriqualand  West "  were  as  follows  : 

"  On  the  south  by  the  Orange  River,  from  the  point  nearest  to 
Kheis ;  on  the  west  to  the  point  nearest  to  Rainah  on  the  east,  thence 
in  a  northerly  direction  to  David's  Grave,  near  the  junction  of  the  Modeler 
and  Riet  rivers,  thence  in  a  straight  line  in  a  northerly  direction  to  the 
summit  of  the  Platberg  .  .  .'from  the  summit  of  the  Platberg,  in  a 
straight  line  in  a  north- westerly  direction,  along  the  north-east  of 
RoelofPs  Fontein,  cutting  the  Vaal  and  Hart's  rivers  to  a  point  north 
of  Boetchap,  thence  in  a  straight  line  in  a  westerly  direction  running 
between  Nelson's  Fontein  and  Koning;  thence  passing  south  of 
Maremane  and  north  of  Klip  Fontein,  in  a  south-westerly  direction, 
in  a  straight  line  to  the  northerly  point  of  the  Langeberg,  and 
thence  in  a  straight  line  in  a  southerly  direction  to  Kheis  aforesaid, 
and  thence  to  the  nearest  point  on  the  Orange  River  aforesaid." 

In  addition  to  Waterboor's  bond  fide  territory,  the 
extensive  lands  thus  cut  off  from  the  Orange  Free 
State  by  the  line  from  Raman  via  David's  Graf  to 
Platberg,  and  from  certain  native  tribes,  to  the  east  of 
Hart's  and  north  of  Vaal  rivers  by  the  north-west  and 
westerly  continuation  of  that  line,  will  be  seen  upon 
reference  to  the  accompanying  diagram  D. 

Upon  receipt  of  Sir  H.  Barkly's  proclamation,  on 
the  4th  of  November,  1871,  the  British  officials  sta- 
tioned at  Klip  Drift  moved  an  armed  force  of  mounted 
police  into  Free  State  territory,  and  took  forcible 
possession  of  Du  Toit's  Pan  and  the  adjoining  "  dry 
diggings;"  but,  in  consequence  of  a  protest  imme- 
diately forwarded  by  the  Free  State  magistrate,  Mr. 
0.  J.  Truter,  to  Inspector  Gilfillan,  in  command  of  the 


328  INVASION    OF   THE   FREE  STATE. 

invading  force,  that  officer  temporarily  withdrew  his 
men.* 

"On  the  16th  instant,"  however,  in  the  words  of  President 
Brand,  "  Messrs.  Campbell  and  Thompson,  acting  on  behalf  of  Sir 
H.  Barkly,  gave  notice  to  the^Landdrost  of  Pniel  that  they  would, 
notwithstanding  his  protest,  exercise  civil  and  criminal  jurisdiction 
within  that  district ;  and  would  prevent  the  continuation  of  magis- 
terial and  other  functions  by  the  Landdrost  of  Pniel  and  the  other 
officers  appointed  by  this  Government,  and  on  the  same  day  the  Cape 
Frontier  Mounted  and  Armed  Police  forcibly  took  from  the  Orange 
Free  State  a  prisoner  in  their  custody  .  .  .  Wishing  to  prevent,  as 
far  as  lay  in  their  power,  any  collision  .  .  .  the  Government  of  the 
Orange  Free  State  have  issued  orders  to  the  Landdrost  of  Pniel  and 
the  officers  of  this  Government,  to  abstain  for  the  present,  under 
protest,  from  the  exercise  of  the  authority  lawfully  belonging  to 
them,  over  the  district  of  Pniel,  without  predjudice  to  and  fully 
maintaining  and  preserving  all  their  rights,  authority,  and  juris- 
diction." 

Upon  receiving-  information  of  the  invasion  of  their 
territory,  on  the  4th  of  November,  the  Free  State 
Government  issued  the  following  very  moderate  and 
reassuring  proclamation.  Thousands  of  diggers  were 
at  the  time  in  a  scate  of  dangerous  excitement,  and  I, 
as  a  resident  then,  and  for  many  previous  months,  at 
the  "  dry  diggings,"  have  no  hesitation  in  declaring 
my  firm  conviction  that  it  required  hut  one  word  to 
that  effect  from  their  Government,  and  the  great 
majority  of  the  Free  State  diggers  would  have  flown 
to  arms  to  repel  the  aggression  ;  whilst  I  am  even 
more  certain  that  hut  few  of  the  British  diggers  would 
have  taken  part  with  the  invading  force,  which  nearly 
every  man  of  sense  looked  upon  as    an   uncalled-for, 

*  Vide  p.  51, 0.F.S.  Blue  Book,  "  Correspondence  between  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  Orange  Free  State  and  the  Governor  of  the  Colony." — 
Bloemfontein,  1872. 


PRESIDENT    BRAND'S    PROTEST.  329 

distasteful,  and  unwarrantable  outrage.  I  can  con- 
scientiously affirm  that  I  did  not  hear  any  old  digger, 
British  or  Colonial,  express  a  different  opinion ;  though 
a  few — and  a  very  few — new  arrivals,  just  fresh  from 
England,  and  totally  unacquainted  with  the  nature  and 
merits  of  the  case,  did  express  their  sentiments  to  the 
effect  that  wherever  Englishmen  went  they  should 
carry  their  flag !  It  is,  however,  certain,  that,  had  the 
diggers  once  become  involved  in  hostilities,  by  far  the 
great  majority  would  have  joined  the  Free  State. 
The  Free  State  magistrate  and  commissioner,  Mr.  O. 
J.  Truter,  then  stationed  at  Du  Toit's  Pan,  was  most 
popular  with  every  man  on  the  fields,  and  with  justice, 
as  the  lamentable  fiasco  the  new  Government  made  of 
exercising  jurisdiction  over  the  diamond  fields,  after 
expelling  that  of  the  Free  State,  forcibly  illustrates. 

Proclamation. 

"  Whereas,  I,  Johannes  Hendricus  Brand,  President  of  the  Orange 
Free  State,  have  received  a  copy  of  a  proclamation  from  His  Excel- 
lency the  Governor  of  the  Cape  Colony,   dated day  of , 

1871,  by  which  Captain  Waterboer  and  his  people  are  proclaimed 
British  subjects,  and  a  large  portion  of  the  territory,  which  has  for 
many  years  been  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Government  and  Law 
Courts  of  this  State,  and  in  the  quiet  and  peaceful  possession  of  its 
burghers,  British  territory,  against  which  the  Government  of  the 
Orange  Free  State  protested  to  His  Excellency  the  Governor  of  the 
Cape  Colony ;  and 

"Whereas  I  this  morning  received  information  from  theLanddrost 
of  Pniel,  Mr.  0.  J.  Truter,  that  Inspector  Gilfillan,  and  fifteen  men 
of  the  Colonial  Frontier  Armed  and  Mounted  Police,  have  moved  on 
to  Du  Toit's  Pan,  and  with  fifty  men  of  the  said  Frontier  Force  of 
the  Cape  Colony  on  to  Vooruitzigt  (De  Beer's)  and  within  tbe  terri- 
tory of  the  Orange  Free  State,  and  are  stationed  there  now,  against 
which  the  Landdrost  of  Pniel  before  mentioned  formally  and  solemnly 
protested  to  the  said  Inspector  Gilfillan,  as  also  against  the  exercise 
of  any  authority  by  him,  or  any  person  in  the  name  of  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  Cape  Colony ;  and 


:j:>o  the  president's  wise  forbearance. 

"Whereas!,  on  fche  receipt  of  the  letter  of  His  Excellency  the 
Governor,  dated  the  23rd  October,  protested  on  the  2nd  instant,  on 
behalf  of  this  Government,  against  the  said  proclamation,  as  a  viola- 
tion of  Art.  2  of  the  Convention  of  the  23rd  of  February,  1854,  and  an 
encroachment  upon  the  rights  and  territory  of  the  Orange  Free  State  : 

"  I,  therefore,  herewith  protest  against  the  entrance  of  the  above- 
mentioned  armed  force  of  the  Government  of  the  Cape  Colony,  on 
the  territory  of  the  Orange  Free  State  as  a  violation  of  its  territory, 
and  as  a  hostile  invasion  in  time  of  perfect  peace  which  has  hitherto 
existed  between  the  Cape  Colony  and  the  Orange  Free  State,  and 
against  the  exercise  of  any  authority  by  or  on  behalf  of  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  Cape  Colony,  on  or  over  the  before  mentioned  farms,  or 
on  any  diggings  or  places  situated  within  the  territory  of  the  Orange 
Free  State  ;  and 

"  Whereas  I  am  desirous  of  preventing  any  collision  between  the 
Governments  and  peoples  of  the  Cape  Colony  and  this  State,  who 
are  allied  to  each  other  by  the  strongest  ties  of  blood  and  friendship, 
therefore  I  hereby  order  and  enjoin  all  officers,  burghers,  and  resi- 
dents of  this  State,  to  guard  against  any  action  which  might  lead  to 
such  collision,  in  the  fullest  confidence  that  the  information  and 
explanations  which  will  be  given  to  Her  Britannic  Majesty's  Govern- 
ment in  England  by  our  Plenipotentiary  will  secure  the  acknowledg- 
ment and  recognition  of  our  just  rights. 

"  Given  under  my  hand  and  the  Great  Seal  of  the  Orange  Free 
State,  this  7th  day  of  November,  1871. 

"J.  H.  Brand,  President. 
"By  order,  "F.  K.  Hoiike,  Gov.  Secretary.'* 

In  all  human  probability  this  timely  and  dignified, 
firm  yet  pacific  protest  prevented  a  serious  affray  and 
the  loss  of  many  lives,  if  not,  indeed,  the  origin  of  a 
sanguinary  war.  But  it  is  not  alone  in  this  instance 
that  both  the  Orange  Free  State  and  the  Cape  Colony 
have  to  thank  the  able  and  sagacious,  above  all, 
humane  President  of  the  former.  If  I  am  rightly  in- 
formed— and  having  received  the  information  from 
several  high  officials  who  were  actually  present,  and 
whose  testimony  is  beyond  all  suspicion  —at  the  Special 


PUBLIC  GRATITUDE  DUE  TO  PRESIDENT  BRAND.  Sol 

Extraordinary  Session  of  the  Volksraad,  convoked  by 
President  Brand  to  consider  the  gross  violation  and 
forcible  seizure  of  part  of  their  territory,  when,  on  the 
4th  of  December,  1871,  the  subject  was  debated,  to  a 
man,  the  whole  of  the  members  of  the  Parliament  rose 
to  their  feet,  and  the  cry  was,  "  War  !  War  !"  With 
admirable  patience,  wisdom,  and  perseverance,  Presi- 
dent Brand  successfully  restrained  and  subdued  this 
dangerous  and  unanimous  expression  of  sentiment. 
Considering  that  in  an  emergency  such  as  that  in 
question  the  Free  State  could  put  from  eight  to  ten 
thousand  able-bodied  men  in  the  field,  all  well  mounted, 
well  armed,  and  capital  shots,  and  constituting  a  most 
effective  and  formidable  irregular  force,  if  handled  ac- 
cording to  the  principles  of  guerilla  warfare  ;  and  con- 
sidering, mereover,  that  the  enthusiasm  of  a  defensive 
and  national  war,  pro  liber tate  patriae,  would  have  ani- 
mated the  whole  country,  it  is  no  small  credit  and 
gratitude  to  which  he  who  prevented  so  great  a  catas- 
trophe to  South  Africa  is  entitled.  I  have  seen  to 
what  even  Chinese  rebels,  almost  unarmed,  arc  in- 
spired in  such  a  war  ;  and  I  have  a  far  higher  opinion 
of  the  people  of  the  Free  State.  The  Cape  Colony  has 
reason  to  be  grateful  to  President  Brand ;  for,  had  he 
but  yielded  to  the  popular  indignation,  the  Colonists 
would  either  have  had  to  embark  in  a  fratricidal  war — 
contrary  to  their  wishes,  and  the  expressly  indicated 
feeling  of  their  Parliament,  in  order  to  support  their 
new  Governor's  unjustifiable  outrage — or  else  rebel 
against  his  arbitrary  and  unlawful  acts,  refuse  com- 
pliance to  the  call  to  arms,  and  leave  him  and  the 
small  force  then  at  his  command  either  to  be  supported 
or  abandoned  by  the  British  Government. 


•66Z  MIGHT    VerSUS   RIGHT. 

As  an  abstract  principle,  in  the  cause  of  right  and 
justice,  it  is,  perhaps,  a  great  pity  that  the  whole 
male  population  of  the  Free  State  Averc  not  called  to 
arms  to  defend  tholr  country  and  repel  aggression.  It 
is  very  doubtful  whether,  in  such  case,  the  nearly 
allied  people  of  the  Colony  of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope 
would  ever  have  dreamed  of  embarking  in  an  entirely 
aggressive  war,  a  hostile  invasion  of  the  Free  State,  at 
the  behest  of  Sir  H.  Barkly — that  the  Imperial  Go- 
vernment  would  have  supported  him  when  he  had 
done  exactly  that  which  he  was  told  not  to  do — viz., 
annex,  by  forcibly  seizing  from  the  Free  State,  "  such 
part  of  the  diamond  fields"  as  did  not  "  belong  to 
Waterboer,"  and  without  the  "consent"  of  the  Cape 
Parliament — seems  equally  unlikely.  It  is  far  more 
probable  that  the  Governor  would  have  had  to  suffer 
for  his  utterly  inexcusable  aggression,  and  that  the 
Orange  Free  State  would  have  been  left  to  the  enjoy- 
ment of  its  indisputable  rights  and  territory. 

Diplomacy,  however,  was  resorted  to  (which  has  not 
yet  obtained  justice),  and  Sir  H.  Barkly  saw  that,  by 
the  law  of  might,  he  could  plunder  and  outrage  the 
neighbouring  State  with  impunity. 

The  following  extracts  from  a  despatch,  President 
Brand  to  Sir  H.  Barkly,  dated  "  Bloemfontein,  7th 
February,  1872,"  are  extremely  important,  as  proving 
that  neither  Pniel  nor  that  district  ever  belonged  to 
Waterboer:  — 

"•That  Her  Majesty's  Government*  exercised  civil  and  criminal 
jurisdiction  before  the  abandonment''''   {of  the  Sovereignty),  "  and  that 


*  Vide  p.  77,  "  Correspondence  between  the  President  of  the  Orange 
Free  State  and  the  Governor  of  the  Cape  Colony." — Bloemfontein, 
O.F.S.,  1872. 


PKOOF    OF    FREE    STATE   RIGHT    TO    PNIEL.  333- 

the  Orange  Free  State,  after  the  abandonment,  continued  to  exercise  sucli 
jurisdiction  over  the  territory  transferred  to  it,  bnt  now  claimed  on 
behalf  of  Captain  N.  Waterboer,  and  recently  proclaimed  British 
territory,  is  also  proved,  amongst  other  documents  and  evidence,  by 
a  letter  ...  of  which  the  following  is  a  copy  "  : — 

"His  Honor  J.  H.  Brand,  "Bethany,  Sept.  18,  1871. 

"President  of  the  Orange  Free  State. 

"  Sir, — We,  the  undersigned,  together  with  the  other  Missionaries 
of  the  Berlin  Mission  Society,  resident  in  the  Free  State,  request 
your  Honour  to  bring  the  following  petition  under  the  consideration 
of  the  Free  State.  And  although  we  have  no  sure  ground  to  go 
upon,  that  the  English  Government  will  annex  the  diamond  terri- 
tory, in  which  our  Mission  Station  Pniel  is  situated,  yet,  as  such  a 
report  is  circulated,  and  according  to  the  last  intimation  of  His 
Excellency  Sir  Henry  Barkly,  such  a  measure  appears  to  be  in  con- 
templation ;  therefore  it  is  our  earnest  wish  that  Pniel  remains,  as 
hitherto,  under  the  Free  State  Government. 

11  Umhr  the  present  Government  tve  have  experienced  justice  and  pro- 
tection, and  have  been  enabled  peacably  to  carry  on  our  Mission 
work.  Also,  we  are  satisfied  with  the  measures  taken  hj  the  Free  State 
Government,  in  reference  to  the  diggings  at  Pniel,  which  has  relieved 
us  from  a  great  deal  of  care  and  anxiety.     .     . 

"la  conclusion,  from  our  long  experience  and  knowledge  of  land 
questions  in  this  country,  we  must  acknowledge  the  full  right  of  the 
Free  State  Government  to  exercise  jurisdiction  over  Pniel. 

"  During  the  time  of  the  British  Sovereigntg  Pniel  stood  under  the 
Magistrate  of  Bloemfontein  (Mr.  Stuart),  who  came  himself,  in  criminal 
cases,  to  Pniel.  The  Chief,  old  Andries  Waterboer,  never  exer- 
cised ANY  JURISDICTION  THERE. 

"And  it  stands  to  reason,  that  this  right  passed  from  the  British 
Government  to  the  Free  State  Government,  when  the  above-named 
Government  gave  the  Sovereignty  over  to  the  present  Government 
of  the  Free  State,  which  has,  from  that  time  to  the  present,  taken  Pniel' 
under  its  jurisdiction. 

"Therefore  we  beg  the  Free  State  Government,  if  necessary,  to 
take  measures  that  Pniel  may  remain  under  the  Free  State  Govern- 
ment. "  We  have  the  honour  to  be, 

"Your  Honour's  most  obedient  servants, 
(Signed)  "C.  F.  Wuras, 

"J.  N.  Meyfarth, 
"  Missionaries  of  the  Berlin  Mission  Socicti/.^ 


334  ADAMANTLY    NEVER    WATERBOER'S. 

Still  further  indisputable  proof  that  neither  Pnicl 
nor  the  adjacent  district  ever  belonged  to,  or  was  occu- 
pied by  Waterboer,  is  supplied  in  a  despatch  from 
President  Brand  to  Sir  H.  Barkly,  dated  "Bloemfon- 
tein,  November  6th,  1871,"  from  which  we  cull  the 
following  extract : — 

''That  Captains  A.  and  N.  Waterboer*  never  had  or  occupied 
the  ground  claimed  by  Captain  N.  Waterboer  from  David's  Gkaf 
to  Platbero  can  be  proved  by  a  host  of  witnesses,  and  is  also  clear 
from  the  beforementioned  letter  of  Captain  A.  Waterboer  "  (to  Mr. 
Jacobs.  Quoted  in  Annexure  to  Chapter  10)  "  and  other  docu- 
mentary evidence.  For  instance,  from  what  is  stated  ...  by  Mr. 
Assist.  Com.-Gen.  Green  ...  p.  50,  Blue  Book,  '  Further  Corre- 
spondence, &c,  .  .  .  presented  to  both  Houses  of  Parliament  in 
1853:' — 'A  second  party  .  .  .  purchased,  &c,  .  .  .  and  a  third, 
under  Fourie,  obtained  in  the  same  manner  from  the  Koranna  Chief, 
David  Dantzer,  an  extensive  tract  of  country  to  the  westward  of  JBloemfon- 
tein  between  the  Modder  and  VuaV  (quoted  at  p.  31,  Chapter  II.). 

"The  document  dated  over  Modder  Eiver,  15th  May,  1839,  ac- 
knowledging the  sale,  can  be  seen  in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  to 
Government  at  Bloemfontein,  is  signed  by  D.  S.  Fourie  and  the 
mark  of  David  Dantzer,  and  hears  the  following  memorandum,  initialed 
II  I).  W.,  in  the  handwriting  of  Major  Warden,  and  dated  Bloemfon- 
tein, 6th  January,  1848  :  — 

"  'Kaptyn  Jan  Bloem  this  day  acknowledged  in  my  presence  that 
he  was  present,  and  is  aware  that  David  Dantzer  entered  into  this 
agreement  with  his  own  free  will  and  without  any  threat  what- 
ever.' 

(a)  ' '  On  the  sketch  of  which  I  have  the  honour  to  enclose  a 
tracing,  David  Dantzer  has  ground  allotted  to  him  ten  miles  above 
Platberg,  ten  miles  below,  and  ten  miles  out  from  the  river,  recom- 
mended by  Major  Warden  and  approved  by  Sir  H.  Smith,  on  the  12th 
April,  1849,  conditionally,  that  it  did  not  interfere  with  any  farmers; 
Scheele  Kobus,  or  Gousop,  twdve  miles  along  the  river  and  six  out, 
approved  by  Sir  H.  Smith,  15th  August,  1850;  and  Jan  Bloem  from 
there  to  three  hours  beyond  the  Mission  Station  Pxiel,  on  the  1 3th 

*  Vide  p.  56,  Blue  Book,  "  Further  correspondence  respecting  the 
affairs  of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope." — London,  February  6,1872. 


FURTHER    PROOF    OF   FREE    STATE    RIGHTS.  335 

Feb.,  1852.  The  pencil  memorandum  is  the  handwriting  of,  and 
initialed  by,  Mr.  H.  Green,  British  Resident.  This  part,  which  has 
for  a  number  of  years  been  in  the  possession  and  occupation  of  our  people, 
under  titles  issued  by  the  British  Government  and  that  of  the  Orange 
Free  State,  is  entirely  cut  off  and  talcen  away  by  the  line  described  in  the 
■copy  of  your  Excellency' s  proclamation  as  V/aterboer1  s  territory,  by  a 
line  from  Ramah  via  David's  Graf  to  Platberg." 

(a).  By  this  sketch  (the  annexed  Diagram  E),  and 
the  documents  referred  to,  the  fact  that  the  whole  south 
bank  of  the  Vaal,  from  Platberg  to  below  Pniel,  was 
never  Waterboer's,  but  was  disposed  of  to  the  Free 
State  by  its  rightful  and  original  native  owners  (most 
of  whom  acknowledged  Cornelius  Kok  as  their  para- 
mount chief),  is  placed  beyond  all  shadow  of  doubt. 
Moreover,  Sir  H.  Barkly  and  his  colleagues  in  the 
robbery  of  the  Free  State  have  not  yet  attempted  to 
question  or  reply  to  the  production  of  these  facts,  and, 
in  especial,  the  sketch  actually  made  by  a  former  British 
Resident  or  Governor  of  the  territory  in  question  ! 

A  most  admirable,  logical,  and  irresistibly  conclu- 
sive "  protest,"  or  statement  of  their  case,  as  against 
Sir  Henry  Barkly  and  the  British  and  Colonial  Govern- 
ments, was  issued  to  the  whole  civilized  world  by  the 
Volksraad  of  the  Orange  Free  State  upon  the  19th  of 
December,  1871,  but  is  far  too  long  for  quotation. 

It  took  Mr.  Southey,  the  Colonial  Secretary,  exactly 
one  hundred  and  tiventy  days  (seven  being  deducted  for 
time  occupied  in  ordinary  transmission  of  the  protest 
from  Bloemfontein  to  Cape  Town  by  post)  to  reply  to 
the  Volksraad' s  protest !  His  reply  is  worthless  In 
the  words  of  the  Free  State  Government's  exhaustive 
and  elaborate  subsequent  refutation,  "the  memoran- 
dum of  the  Government  of  the  Cape  Colony  com- 
mences with  a  summing-up,  according  to  their  views  and 


3.'JG    THE    RIGHT    TO    ADAMANTIA    ABSOLUTELY    PROVED. 

in  their  words,  of  the  grounds  and  arguments  mentioned 
in  the  protest  of  the  Volksraad  .  .  .  but  it  contains  only 
a  'partial  statement  of  those  grounds  and  arguments" 
Instead  of  attempting  to  prove  or  establish  the  main 
question — Waterboer's  claim  to  the  lands  seized  from 
the  Free  State,  and  the  right  of  the  Colonial  Govern- 
ment to  annex  those  lands  to  the  Colony — it  deals 
mainly  with  the  past  and  obsolete  history  of  the 
country,  as  to  what  was  or  was  not  the  territory  made 
over  to  the  Free  State  at  the  abandonment  of  the 
Sovereignty  by  the  British  Government.  And  although 
on  this  point  Mr.  Southey's  quotations  and  arguments 
were  singularly  incorrect  and  fallacious,  the  Free  State 
can  afford  even  to  admit  them  all  (although  the  reply 
demolished  them),  for  it  is  quite  sufficient  for  their 
claim  that  the  fact  cannot  be  denied,  namely,  that  by 
Article  4  of  the  Convention  of  1854  it  was  stipulated 
by  H.B.M.'s  Special  Commissioner  that  such  persons 
as  had  been  living  under  the  British  rule,  u  should  be 
considered  to  be  guaranteed  in  the  possession  of  their  estates 
by  the  Neiv  Orange  River  Government ;"  and  that  this 
was  done  in  the  case  of  no  fewer  than  thirty-three 
British  land  certificate  farms  over  the  boundary  now 
claimed  and  seized  for  Waterboer,  besides,  also,  in  the 
case  of  many  of  the  remainder  of  the  143  farms  so 
scandalously  and  openly  stolen. 

Perhaps  it  did  not  really  take  Mr.  Southey  from  the 
20th  of  December,  1871,  until  the  25th  of  April,  1872, 
which  latter  is  the  date  of  his  memorandum,  to  concoet 
so  poor  a  production  ;  perhaps,  instead,  we  can  make 
a  shrewd  guess  that  he  only  got  it  up  as  a  Parlia- 
mentary dodge,  in  order  to  influence  members,  preju- 
dice their  minds  against  the  Free  State,  and  make 


MR.    SOUTHEY*  S    FUTILE    EFFORTS.  337 

them  favourable  to  annexation — the  Bill  to  legalize 
which  was  just  about  to  be  discussed  in  the  Cape 
Parliament. 

Bat  vain  were  all  the  dodges,  the  quibbles,  and  the 
frothy  but  unsubstantial  eloquence  of  Mr.  Southey  and 
his  colleagues  !  In  vain  did  they  struggle  to  make  the 
Parliament  believe  that  by  its  "  resolutions  "  of  the 
previous  session  it  had  pledged  and  committed  itself 
to  annexation  !  In  vain  did  Mr.  Southey  outvie  all 
his  previous  efforts  in  wilful  misrepresentation  of  the 
case ;  and  malign,  even  more  venomously  than  usual, 
the  Orange  Free  State  !  The  House  would  not  be 
humbugged  and  deluded ;  would  not,  in  fact,  hear  of 
or  consent  to  annexation  upon  any  terms  whatever. 

One  of  the  Cape  Town  newspapers,  "  Het  Volks- 
blad,"  on  the  2nd  of  April,  1872,  thus  expressed  its 
views  : — 

"  The  apparent  approval  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Colonial 
Executive  is  based  entirely  upon  the  conditional  approval  of  the  Cape 
Parliament  to  that  policy,  obtained  from  it  in  a  hurry  by  a  resolu- 
tion cunningly  devised  to  allay  alarm,  while  forwarding  the  object 
of  the  annexationists,  and  even  then  passed  only  by  a  majority  of 
one  vote." 

Such  seemed  also  to  be  the  unanimous  opinion  of 
Parliament — strengthened,  no  doubt,  by  the  feeling 
that  Sir  H.  Barkly  had  far  exceeded  the  conditional 
authority  which  had  been  given  him,  and  had,  in  fact, 
simply  tried  to  humbug  the  House — when,  on  the  5th 
of  June,  1872,  "  The  Colonial  Secretary  moved  that 
the  West  Griqualand  Annexation  Bill  be  read  a 
second  time." 

The  following  hostile  amendments  were  at  once 
proposed : 


338  MR.  southey's  mendacity. 

"Mr.  Solomon  moved*  as  an  amendment :  'That,  pending  th. 
settlement  of  the  disputes  between  the  Government  of  Great  Britain 
and  the  Government  of  the  Orange  Free  State,  on  the  subject  of 
the  boundaries  of  West  Griqualand  .  .  .  and  in  the  absence  of  all 
information  of  the  number  and  position  of  its  population  .  .  .  the 
House  feels  that  it  would  be  inexpedient  to  enter  this  session  upon 
the  consideration  of  any  measure  for  the  annexation  of  that  territory 
to  this  Colony.' "  .  .   . 

But  by  far  a  more  severe  blow  to  the  illegal  and 
filibustering  action  already  perpetrated  by  the  execu- 
tive members  of  the  Government  against  the  Free 
State,  and  the  policy  of  duplicity  with  which  they 
now  sought  to  shirk,  and  to  throw  upon  the  Colonial 
Parliament  both  the  odium  and  the  responsibility,  was 
the  amendment  next  proposed  by  one  of  their  usually 
stanchest  supporters  : — 

"Mr.  Mermman  moved  as  a  further  amendment,  That  the  Bill  be 
read  a  second  time  on  this  day  six  months*  " 

On  the  order  of  the  day  for  the  second  reading  of 
the  Bill,  Mr.  Southey,  the  Colonial  Secretary,  opened 
the  debate  by  one  of  the  most  grossly  mendacious 
speeches  it  has  ever  been  my  lot  to  encounter.  Every 
single  matter  of  fact,  every  political  or  historical  event, 
involved  in  the  territorial  dispute  with  the  Free  State, 
was  misrepresented  and  perverted.  For  the  honour 
of  British  officials  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  such  displays 
may  by  abnormal  and  exceptional  occurrence  prove 
the  opposite  nature  of  their  character  as  a  rule.  Here 
is  a  sample  of  Mr.  Southey's  veracity  : 

11  Waterloer  himself  hie w\  nothing  whatever  about  that  {the  Vrfberg) 

*  Vide  Parliamentary  Report,  "Cape  Argus,"  and  "  Standard  and 
Mail."— June  6th,  1872. 

f  See  reports  of  Speech,  "  Cape  Argu3,"  "  Standard  and  Mail." — 
June  8th,  1872. 


ANNEXATION    REPUDIATED    BY    PARLIAMENT.  339 

line,  and  had  never  recognised  it  as  a  boundary  between  himself  and  the 
Free  State,  or  as  at  all  his  boundary  !    .    .  . 

"  The  Berlin  Missionary  Society  had  occupied  the  land  there  (at 
Pniel)  before  the  time  of  Sir  H.  Smith's  proclamation  by  permission 
of  Waterboer  !  " 

We  need  not  nauseate  ourselves  with  any  further 
consideration  of  Mr.  Southey's  unmitigated  perversion 
of  truth ;  the  prompt  repudiation  his  statements  met 
with  from  the  representatives  of  the  people  being  suffi- 
cient to  prove  my  principal  object — the  unlawful  and 
unauthorized  nature  of  the  annexation  of  the  Free 
State  diamond  fields  ordered  by  Sir  H.  Barkly's 
proclamation  of  October  27th,  1871,  and  executed 
bv  his  instructions. 

Out  of  thirty  speakers  who  took  part  in  the  debate 
on  the  motion  for  the  second  reading  of  the  Annexa- 
tion Bill,  twenty-six,  including  all  the  most  able  and 
influential  members  in  the  House,  spoke  in  opposition, 
and  declared  their  determination  to  vote  against  it ! 

To  the  honour  and  justice  of  the  Cape  Colonists 
and  their  representatives,  the  able  speeches  of  Mr. 
Merriman,  Advocates  Buchanan  and  De  Villiers, 
Messrs.  Knight,  Prince,  Watermeyer,  Wright,  Orpen, 
and  Bowker,  stand  an  imperishable  record.  The  only 
four  members  who  expressed  an  intention  to  vote  for 
the  Bill  did  so  because  they  considered  that  the  House 
was  pledged  to  that  course  by  the  "  resolutions " 
passed  the  previous  session ;  overlooking  the  fact  that 
certain  conditions  therein  had  been  violated  by  the 
Governor,  and  that,  although  they  all  deprecated  any 
infringement  upon  Free  State  territory,  such  had 
actually  occurred  to  a  very  great  and  serious  extent  I 
The   majority,  however,   very  clearly  expressed   the 

z  2 


THE    BILL    REJECTED 

almost  unanimous  feeling  of  the  House  that  u  undue 
advantage  had  been  taken  of  those  ;  resolutions '  by 
the  Government;"  that  injustice  had  already  been 
done  to  the  Free  State ;  but  that  by  rejecting  the  Bill 
the  House  could  alone  disclaim  responsibility  for  that 
injustice,  and  avoid  participation  and  complicity  in  its 
future;  persistence. 

On  the  7th  of  June,  1872,  at  the  end  of  a  petulant 
speech,  replete,  as  usual,  with  the  grossest  misstate- 
ments, Mr.  Southey,  the  Colonial  Secretary,  said :  * 

"'What  had  urged  the  British  Government  to  interfere  .  . 
was,  that  np  to  the  discovery  of  diamonds  the  Free  State  had  been 
content  with  the  Vetberg  line  .  .  .  but  after  that  the  two  Republics 
began  to  move.  A  mock  (sic)  conference  was  held  at  Nooitgedacht, 
from  which  Waterboer  departed  in  disgust,  and  then  the  President 
of  the  Free  State  issued  a  proclamation  (a)  seizing  his  ground  north  of 
the  Vaal.  It  was  this  movement  (b),  and  this  attempt  to  enclose  all  the 
British  subjects  there,  that  forced  the  Government  to  act.  .  .  .  With 
permission  of  the  House  he  would  withdraw  the  Bill.'  The  House 
agreed  to  the  withdrawal  of  the  Bill." 

Like  all  Mr.  Southey' s  arguments  in  this  matter,  the 
two  reasons  on  which  he  attempts  to  justify  the  un- 
warrantable "  seizure "  of  the  diamond  fields  are 
utterly,  and,  it  must  be,  wilfully  false. 

(a)  AVe  have  already  seen  that  from  1861,  when  the 
Free  State  bought  the  Campbell  grounds,  it  has  always 
claimed  them ;  that,  in  186tf,  it  sent  out  a  surveying 
commission  for  the  purpose  of  defining  those  grounds, 
preparatory  to  taking  possession;  that  in  1<S(U  it- 
yielded  weakly  to  the  claim  set  up  for  Waterboer  by 
his  dme  damne'e,  David,  and  consented  to  arbitration ; 
and  that  as  a  well-known  and  indisputable  fact,  Water- 


*  Vide  Parliamentary  Report,  "  Cape  Argus."— June  loth,  1872. 


MOKE    OF    MR.    SOUTHEY'S    MISTATEMENTS.  341 

boer  never  did  occupy  or  possess  those  grounds 
formerly  belonging*  to  Cornelius  Kok,  and  which  alone 
were  those  claimed  by  the  Free  State.  The  cause  of 
so  much  delay  in  taking  possession  of  the  Campbell 
lands  is  to  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  after  the 
failure  to  obtain  arbitration  in  1864  the  Free  State 
became  involved  in  the  wars  with  the  Basutos,  which 
occupied  all  the  energy  and  attention  of  the  Govern- 
ment. Immediately  after  the  final  settlement  of  those 
serious  hostilities  the  Free  State  proceeded  to  main- 
tain its  rights  to  the  Campbell  lands  ;  the  meeting  at 
Nooitgedacht  being  the  result. 

(b)  We  have  also  seen  in  these  pages  that  there 
were  not  any  British  subjects,  nor,  indeed,  any  diamond 
fields,  within  the  Campbell  lands,  the  only  territory 
(north  of  the  Vaal)  to  which  the  Free  State  proclama- 
tion quoted  by  Mr.  Sou  they  referred. 

The  Cape  Parliament  having  so  positively  rejected 
the  Bill  to  annex  the  diamond  fields,  and  having 
thereby  repudiated  all  and  every  responsibility  for  the 
actual  annexation  which  had  already  been  unlawfully 
effected  by  the  Governor  without  its  consent,  Sir  H. 
Barkly  retained  the  entire  responsibility  for  his  un- 
authorized act. 

Extraordinary  as  it  may  seem — especially  to  those 
who  are  unacquainted  with  the  dark  ways  and  tortuous 
windings  of  British  diplomacy  at  the  present  time — 
it  is  no  less  strange  than  true  that,  although  by  his 
last  despatch  on  the  subject  (already  quoted  in  this 
chapter),  Earl  Kimberley  had  pointed  out  to  Sir  H. 
Barkly  that  the  "  resolutions"  juggled  from  the  Cape 
Parliament,  and  on  which  he  relied,  u  do  not  in  them- 
selves amount  to  a  formal  compliance  with  the  condi- 


342  A   SHIFTY    POLICY. 

tions  laid  down  in  my  despatch  of  May  18  "  (quoted 
at  the  end  of  Chapter  XIII.),  he  yet,  upon  receiving 
the  Governor's  information  that  by  the  proclamations 
of  October  27th,  the  annexation  of  the  diamond  fields  had 
actually  taken  place  without  that  u formal  compliance" 
expressed  the  approval  of  the  British  Government ! 

In  a  despatch  dated  "  Downing  Street,  December  8, 
1871,"  Earl  Kimberley  thus  stultifies  his  previous  in- 
structions and  conditions  : — 

k' .  .  .  Considering  all  the  circumstances  *  stated  in  your  former 
despatches  "  (which  we  have  seen  were  wholly  untrue),  "  they  (Her 
Majesty's  Government)  approve  the  step  which  you  have  taken, 
being  convinced  that  you  would  not  have  acted  in  anticipation  of 
provision  being  formally  made  by  the  Cape  Parliament  for  the 
annexation  of  Waterboer's  territory  to  the  Colony,  unless  you  had 
fully  satisfied  yourself  that  there  were  imperative  reasons  against 
further  delay.  I  have  therefore  to  convey  to  you  Her  Majesty's 
gracious  approval  and  confirmation  of  this  proclamation."  .  .  . 

Whatever  those  " imperative  reasons"  were,  which 
Earl  Kimberley  deemed  sufficient  to  counteract  his 
own  previous  and  explicit  proviso  and  commands,  the 
Cape  Parliament  (excepting  only  four  members)  en- 
tirely failed  to  discover  them.  Therefore  Sir  H. 
Barkly's  ''imperative  reasons"  were  really  nothing 
more  than  the  illegal,  unconstitutional,  utterly  false, 
and  untenable  grounds  upon  which  he  and  his  Execu- 
tive Council  carried  out  their  designs  by  a  hostile 
invasion  of  the  Orange  Free  State,  and  the  forcible 
seizure  or  annexation  of  its  diamond  fields  ! 

Of  course,  those  hypothetical  premises,  the  aforesaid 
"  imperative  reasons,"  remain  open  to  question.     If  it 

*  Vide  p.  43,  Blue  Book,  "  Further  correspondence,  respecting  the 
affairs  of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope." — London,  February  Gth,  1872. 


BRITISH    GOVERNMENT'S   ABSURD    POSITION.         343 

•can  be  proved  that  they  did  not  exist,  or,  existing, 
were  fallacious,  the  "  approval  and  confirmation" 
necessarily  lose  all  moral  force  and  value.  If  this 
work  proves  anything,  it  is  that  no  such  "  imperative 
reasons"  did  really  and  justly  exist.  The  rejection 
of  the  Annexation  Bill  by  the  Cape  Parliament  proves 
the  same  thing.  But  whether,  for  the  sake  of  right 
and  justice,  and  not  being  under  the  influence  of  fear 
of  reprisals  by  a  strong  military  power,  Mr.  Glad- 
stone's Government  will  ever  be  just  and  honourable 
enough  to  retract  an  approval  obtained  from  them  by 
false  representations,  make  restitution  to  the  wronged 
State,  and  properly  punish  the  defaulting-  Colonial 
Governor  who  has  so  egregiously  erred  and  so  crimi- 
nally deceived  them,  who  can  foretel  ? 

Moreover,  the  proclamations  of  Sir  H.  Barkly 
annexed  the  diamond  fields  to  the  Cape  Colony,  and 
Earl  Kimberley's,  or  rather,  the  British  Government's, 
•'approval  and  confirmation"  simply  agreed  to  and 
endorsed  that  act  as  an  accomplished  fact ;  but  as  the 
Cape  Parliament  positively  refused,  disclaimed,  and 
by  right  of  its  constitutional  power  disallowed  any 
such  annexation,  and  as,  in  fact,  no  such  annexation 
has  ever  actually  taken  place,  is  it  not  perfectly  certain 
that  the  proclamations,  the  acts  perpetrated  by  virtue 
of  them,  and  the  "  approval  and  confirmation  "  by  the 
British  Government,  are  one  and  all  utterly  illegal, 
null  and  void  according  to  the  principles  of  all  known 
law,  whether  of  the  place,  national,  or  international  ? 

From  the  day  of  the  seizure  of  the  diamond  fields 
by  Sir  H.  Barkly  to  the  present  time  (February, 
1873),  the  jurisdiction  and  Government  there  esta- 
blished is  both  morally  and  legally  that  of  bandits  and 


3-1-4  THE    DIAMOND     FIELD    DICTATOR. 

filibusters !     Not   by   the   vote,    consent,   request,   or 
even  permission  of  the  people  and  inhabitants  of  the 
diamond  fields  has  the  authority  and  existence  of  the 
usurping  interregnum  been  established  :  not  by  the 
Cape    Parliament,    by   the    British    Parliament,    nor, 
indeed,  by  any  known  or  civilized  Government,  has 
the  forcible  usurpation  of  the  rights  of  the  Free  State, 
and  the  establishment  of  Sir  H.  Barkly's  interregnum, 
been  sanctioned,  recognized,  or  approved.     Therefore, 
I  maintain,  no  lawful  rule  or  government  can  by  any 
conceivable  process  of  reasoning  exist  there.  To  whom,, 
from  the    forcible   usurpation,    to    this    day,    do    the 
diamond  fields  belong  ?     To  whom  do  the  inhabitants 
thereof  (black  and  white,  some  50,000  souls)  render 
allegiance  ?     To  whom  arc   Sir  H.  Barkly's  nominees- 
and  emissaries,  composing  the  usurping  Government 
and  administration,  cither  answerable  or  responsible  ? 
AVhy,  to  no  living  soul,  to  no  power,  state,  or  govern- 
ment, except  the  self-elected  Dictator  and  usurper,  Sir 
Henry  Barkly  !     Truly,  this  is  a  pretty  state  of  things 
for  civilized  people,  Englishmen,  Europeans,  and  sub- 
jects of  the  Free  State,  to  have  to  submit  to  towards- 
the  close  of  the  nineteenth  century  ! 

That  the  above  statements  arc  absolutely  and  literally 
accurate  is  fully  proved  by  the  following  fact :  Being 
convinced  that  all  hope  of  annexation  to  the  Cape  is. 
impossible,  both  from  the  determined  opposition  of 
the  Cape  Parliament,  and  the  ever  increasing  anti])athy 
and  dissatisfaction  of  the  "  digging"  community  either 
to  annexation  or  the  misrule  of  his  shamelessly  usurp- 
ing Junta,  Sir  H.  Barkly,  doubtlessly  becoming 
alarmed  at  the  serious  responsibility  he  had  incurred, 
now  seeks   another   course  to  shirk  it,  by  trying  to 


THE    DIAMOND    FIELDS   A   BRIGAND    STATE.  345- 

induce  the  British  Government  to  receive  and  pro- 
claim the  diamond  fields  a  separate  and  distinct  Crown 
Colony !  *  Of  course,  if  they  were  already  part  and 
parcel  of  the  Cape  Colony  by  annexation,  no  such  plan 
could  either  be  proposed  or  possible.  And  so  is  it 
proved  that  the  diamond  fields  (or  Griqualand  West, 
as  Sir  H.  Barkly  delights  in  terming  them)  are,  and 
have  been,  since  the  month  of  October,  1871,  a  district 
or  tract  of  country  which  has  forcibly  and  illegally 
been  seized  and  retained  by  a  number  of  Colonial 
officials  and  armed  police,  who,  by  the  act,  have 
become  guilty  of  what  all  civilized  laws  condemn  as- 
brigandage.  They  have  established,  and  still  main- 
tain themselves,  vi  et  ctrmis,  as  a  military  despotism,  a 
government  of  filibusters,  wholly  and  solely  appointed 
by,  and  acting  under  the  personal  will  and  authority, 
of  their  Chief,  Sir  H.  Barkly.  Thus  "  Griqualand 
West,"  or  the  diamond  fields,  constitutes  a  brigand 
state  ! 

Since  the  days  of  the  old  buccaneers  of  the  Spanish 
Main  no  such  deed  of  piracy  or  brigandage  has  been 
committed  by  a  British  Governor :  it  would  be  neces- 
sary to  go  back  to  the  acts  of  the  notorious  Morgan  to* 
find  any  parallel. 

As  matters  now  stand,  it  would  be  an  easy  thing- 
for  the  British  Government  to  retreat  with  honour 
and  credit  from  the  absurd,  illegal,  and  unwittingly 
false  position  into  which  they  have  been  deluded  by 
Sir   H.   Barkly;  viz.,    btj    simply   refusing  to  annex   the 


*  This  intelligence  arrived  by  a  late  mail  from  the  Cape,  November.. 
1872.  Vide  "Diamond  News,"  Dutoitspan,  September  14th,  1872; 
"Friend  of  the  Free  State,"  September  26th,  1872;  and  the  South 
African  Press  generally,  subsequent  to  those  dates. 


348  A    (HOICK    OF    EVILS. 

diamond  fields  (is  a  Crown  <1<>l<>iu/.  This,  of  course, 
would  entail  the  consequence  of  repudiating*  the 
Governor's  pscudo  annexation  of  the  territory  in  ques- 
tion to  the  Cape ;  the  dispersion  of  the  brigand  Junta 
at  present  in  occupation ;  and  the  restitution  of  the 
plundered  country  to  the  Free  State,  with  such  fair 
and  proper  compensation  to  that  State  for  the  wrong 
and  injury  to  which  it  has  been  so  outrageously  sub- 
jected. There  are,  indeed,  but  three  courses  open  to 
Her  Majesty's  Government : — 

1 .  To  take  over  the  acts  and  responsibilities  of  the 
banditti,  and  declare  the  territory  seized  by  those 
gentry  a  new  Colony  of  the  Crown. 

2.  To  recall  Sir  H.  Barkly,  disavow  his  proceedings, 
and  restore  the  diamond  fields  to  the  rightful  owners. 

3.  Or,  by  leaving  the  subject  as  it  now  stands,  to 
admit  either  tacitly  or  distinctly  the  sole,  independent, 
and  sovereign  rights  of  Sir  H.  Barkly  as  the  king, 
president,  or  successful  robber-chief  in  actual  posses- 
sion. 

Of  course,  so  far  as  principle  is  concerned,  Sir  H. 
Barkly  has  as  much  right  to  take  unto  himself  a 
colony,  a  territory  belonging  to  some  one  else,  as  ever 
England  had  to  acquire  one  ;  but  then  it  will  at  least 
become  rather  awkward  if  British  Colonial  Governors 
should  receive  a  carte  bhtnche  to  act  like  some  of  the 
free  companions  of  the  good  old  robber  times,  when 
he  took  who  could,  and  those  retained  who  were 
able. 

Should  the  British  Government  pass  over  the  oppor- 
tunity to  extricate  themselves  from  the  imbroglio, 
and  proceed  still  further  under  the  guidance  of  Sir 
liarkly,    and  commit   the  crime  of  annexing    the 


FREE  STATE  CLAIMS  TO  COMPENSATION.      347 

•diamond  fields  as  a  Crown  Colony,  the  Free  State 
will  then  have  an  indisputable  right  to  claim  not  only 
compensation  for  the  loss  and  injury  already  sustained 
"by  the  robbery ,  and  the  diversion  of  its  revenue  into 
the  coffers  of  the  Cape  Government,  but  the  further 
serious  question  of  compensation  to  the  full  amount  of 
the  entire  value  of  the  land  so  deliberately  plundered 
before  even  its  right  and  title  thereto  has  been  scruti- 
nized or  investigated  by  a  proper  tribunal  or  court  of 
arbitration. 

The  imminent  danger  of  this  scheme  being  accom- 
plished may  be  gathered  from  the  following  extract 
from  Sir  H.  Barkly's  speech,  during  his  recent  visit  to 
the  diamond  fields,  at  a  tiffin  given  to  him  at  the 
"  New  Rush,"  on  the  12th  September,  1872  :— 

"I  am  quite  prepared  *  to  admit  now  that  there  can  be  no  union 
with  the  (Cape)  Colon}'-  except  by  the  free  consent  of  the  population. 
(Tremendous  cheering.)  I  am  quite  prepared  to  state  that  to  the 
Secretary  of  State  when  I  next  address  him  on  the  subject.  (Cheer- 
ing renewed.)  Before  I  came  here  time  had  not  permitted  of  my 
having  any  communication  from  Lord  Kimberley  concerning  the 
withdrawal  of  the  Diamond  Fields  Annexation  Bill.  I  do  not  know 
whether  Lord  Kimberley  will  desire  to  have  the  Bill  submitted  to 
another  Session  of  Parliament,  but  I  ham  no  doubt  that  he  will  be 
prepared  to  leave  the  conduct  of  affairs  at  the  fields  under  my  charge, 

LEAVING^THE    FIELDS   AS   A    CliOWtf    CoLOXV." 

a. 

For  the  honour  of  England  it  is  to  be  sincerely 
hoped  that  Her  Majesty's  Government  will  refuse 
assent  to  any  such  course,  and  in  any  case,  even  if 
willing  to  annex,  that  no  move  in  that  direction  will 
be  made  until  the  rights  and   claims  of  the  Orange 

*  Vide  report  of  the  speech,  "  Diamond  News,"  Dutoitspan,  September 
14th,  1872. 


'US  NECESSITY    Or.  ARBITRATION. 

Free  State  to  the  territory  in  question  have  first  been 
submitted  to  and  decided  by  such  legal  arbitration  as 
is  consonant  with  international  law,  and  customary 
between  independent  States,  regardless  of  their  rela- 
tive strength. 


ARBITRATION    CORRESPONDENCE.  349 


CHAPTER  XV. 

A  Review  of  the  Official  Correspondence 
between  the  british,  cape,  and  fllee  state 
Governments  respecting  the  arbitration  offered 
to  the  latter  in  the  matter  of  its  right  to 
the  Campbell  lands  and  South  Adamantia. 

Mala  fides  of  Sir  H.  Barkly  and  his  late  Irresponsible 
Government. — Mr.  Souther's  Ambition. — The  Free  State 
offers  to  submit  its  claims  u  to  the  decision  of  any  inde- 
PENDENT Power." — Rejection  of  those  terms  by  Sir  H« 
Barkly. — The  Free  State  Commando  :  Sir  H.  Barely' s  mis- 
representations.— Resolutions  and  Propositions  of  the  Free 
State  Volksraad. — Sir  H.  Barkly' s  Misrepresentations  to 
Earl  Kimberley,  who  rejects  the  proposed  Foreign  Arbi- 
tration.— Comments  thereon. — Mission  of  Mr.  Hamelberg, 
Free  State  Plenipotentiary:  who  is  treated  with 
indignity,  and  refused  official  reception  by  the  british 
Government. — The  Free  State  offers  to  submit  its  claims 
to  a  Commission  of  Arbitrators  with  a  Foreign  Umpire. — 
Misstatements,  and  persistent  evasion  of  Arbitration,  by 
Sir  H.  Barkly. 

Although  arbitration  is  still  the  subject  of  corre- 
spondence, and  seems  apparently  approaching*  some 
definite  and  effective  termination,  yet  those  who,  like 
myself,  have  studied  the  whole  question  in  all  its 
bearings,  and,  from  first  to  last,  have  closely  observed 
the  detestable  policy  of  Sir  H.  Barkly  and  his  isolated 
Executive  Council,    cannot  fail  to  perceive  that  the 


350  THE   CROWN    COLONY    SCHEME. 

latter  have  really  been  doing*  all  in  their  power  to 
shirk,  evade,  and  delay  ever)'  arrangement  by  which 
arbitration  could  be  effected — until  after  the  diamond 
fields  have  been  annexed  to  Great  Britain  as  a  Crown 
Colon//. 

Both  annexurc  to  the  Cape  and  the  rule  of  the 
brigand  Junta,  or  interregnum,  having  resulted  in  a 
complete  fiasco,  the  four  or  five  individuals  lately* 
eomposing  the  Government  of  the  Cape  sought  to 
continue  their  personal  and  mercenary  scheme,  and  at 
the  same  time  obtain  immunity  for  their  criminal  acts, 
as  well  as  secure  future  advantages  and  emoluments 
for  themselves,  by  inducing  Great  Britain  to  prostitute 
her  honour  and  strength,  and  perpetuate  the  wrong 
done  to  the  Free  State,  by  taking  over  the  diamond 
fields  as  a  Crown  Colony,  and  appointing  as  Lieut. - 
Governor  thereof — Mr.  E.  Southey,  the  Colonial 
Secretary  of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope ! 

Here  we  have  the  key  and  elucidation  explanatory 
of  the  whole  plot ! 

From  first  to  last  that  official  has  supplied  General 
Hay  and  Sir  H.  Barkly  with  the  information,  reasons, 
arguments,  by  which  to  steal  the  diamond  fields,  and 
screen,  palliate,  or  cloak  the  deed ;  now  Sir  H.  Barkly 
sends  him  as  his  deputy  to  rule  and  govern  the 
plundered  territory ! 

Just  about  the  time  diamonds  were  discovered,  and 
Waterboer  applied  for  British  aid  to  steal  the  diamond 
fields,  Her  Majesty's  Government  sent  strict  orders  to 
the    Governor  of   the    Cape   to    establish  responsible 


*  Responsible  government  being  since  (December,  1872)  established 
at  the  Cape,  Sir.  H.  Barldy's  former  Executive  Council  has  been 
dispersed. 


MR.    SOUTHEYJS    PUBLIC,    AND    PRIVATE,    SERVICES.    351 

government  at  that  Colony,  and  as  it  was  sure  to  bo 
so  established  within  a  limited  time  (indeed,  the  Bill 
to  create  responsible,  and  terminate  the  hitherto  irre- 
sponsible form  of  government  passed  the  Cape 
Parliament  in  June,  1872),  there  can  be  but  little 
doubt  that  from  the  first  Mr.  Southey  and  his  col- 
leagues have  been  very  cleverly  creating  the  diamond 
fields  into  a  Crown  Colony,  in  order  to  provide  for 
themselves  in  the  very  probable  event  of  their  services 
not  being  retained  or  required,  by  the  Cape  Parlia- 
ment, when  the  first  responsible  ministry  should  come 
to  be  formed.  If  such  be  the  case,  Mr.  Southey's 
diplomatic  tact,  his  genius  for  political  intrigue  and 
finesse,  must  indeed  be  admirable  !  But  we  cannot 
say  much  for  his  principle. 

As  the  Queen  has  just  approved  the  appointment  of 
Mr.  R.  Southey  as  a  Companion  of  the  order  of  St. 
Michael  and  St.  George,  it  would  imply  that  his 
nefarious  participation  in  the  robbery  of  the  diamond- 
iferous  portion  of  the  Orange  Free  State  is  deemed  to 
be  highly  meritorious  by  Her  Majesty's  Government ! 
Under  these  circumstances  the  probability  is  that  the 
diamond  fields  will  be  proclaimed  a  Crown  Colony, 
and  Mr.  R.  Southey  will  attain  the  prize  for  which  he 
has,  doubtlessly,  all  along  striven — the  apjDointment 
as  Lieutenant-Governor,  in  which  post  he  has  been 
temporarily  installed  by  the  Governor. 

That  the  professed  desire  of  Sir  H.  Barkly,  the 
Colonial  and  British  Governments,  to  have  the  rights 
and  claims  of  the  Free  State  to  the  land  of  which  they 
have  already  robbed  it  submitted  to  a  fair  and  impar- 
tial arbitration,  such  as  would  be  according  to  the  rule 
and  practice  of  international  law,  is  sincere,    no  one 


602  UNJUST    BRITISH    PROPOSALS. 

who  has  read  these  pages  can  honestly  believe  ;  whilst 
the  way  in  which  the  question  has  been  treated,  the 
quibbles  by  which  it  has  been  always  delayed,  the 
grossly  unfair  and  illegal  nature  of  the  plans  proposed, 
and  the  way  in  which  the  proposals  of  the  Free  State 
have  been  ever  shirked  and  rejected,  proves  beyond 
all  dispute  the  hypocrisy  and  pre-dctermined  injustice 
with  which  it  has  been  treated.  I  subjoin  a  few 
extracts  from  Sir  H.  Barkly's  and  Earl  Kimberley's 
dictatory  declarations  to  the  Free  State  of  the  sort  of 
arbitration  they,  in  their  towering  arrogance,  would 
permit. 

"  Her  Majesty's  Government  had  no  desire  whatever  to  prejudge 
the  merits  of  the  dispute  between  the  Free  State  and  the  Griqua 
Chief.  On  the  contrary,  they  have  instructed  me  to  renew  and 
urgently  press  upon  both  parties  the  proposal  for  a  referenco  of  the 
whole  matter  to  arbitration."  (Sir  If.  Barhhj  to  President  Braid, 
January  23rd,  1871.) 

On  the  face  of  it  how  fair  and  just  this  specious 
declaration  seems !  That  the  portion  of  South  Ada- 
mantia  which  Sir  H.  Barkly  so  coolly  recommends  the 
Free  State  to  submit  to  arbitration  contained  148  Free 
State  farms;  had  for  a  number  of  years  (from  30 
to  13)  been  jmrt  and  parcel  of  that  State  (first  under 
the  Sovereignty,  then  its  present  Grovernment),  subject 
to  its  indisputable  jurisdiction  during  all  that  time  ; 
and  had  never  belonged  to  Watcrboer ;  whilst  38  of 
those  farms  had  been  specially  transferred  to  the  Free 
State  by  British  title-deeds  at  the  abandonment  of  the 
Orange  River  Sovereignty  in  1854;  these  are  facts 
which  very  materially  alter  the  character  of  the  pro- 
posal, and  which  arc,  of  course,  ignored.  President 
Brand's  reply  is  quoted  in  Chapter  XIII.,  in  which  he 


PRESIDENT   BRAND'S    JUST    PROPOSALS.  353 

offers  "  to  refer  the  following  questions  to  the  decision 
of  any  independent  power"  : 

11  1st.  Whether,  under  the  present  circumstances,  Her  Majesty's 
Government  can,  consistently  with  the  true  intent  and  meaning  and 
the  spirit  of  Article  2  of  the  Convention"  (quoted  in  Chapter  III.) 
"  accede  to  the  request  of  Captain  Waterboer  "  (to  be  received  as  a 
British  subject,  and  the  lands  he  claimed,  including  all  the  diamond 
fields,  to  be  declared  British) ;  and, 

"  2ndly.  To  decide,  as  arbitrator,  on  the  validity  of  the  title 
of  the  Orange  Free  State  Government  to  the  Campbell  lands  ; 
that  is,  the  lands  on  the  north  of  the  Yaal  River." — (President 
Brand  to  Sir  Jff.  Barklij,  March  4th,  1871.) 

To  the  above  reasonable  and  legitimate  proposition, 
Sir  H.  Barkly  thus  replies  : 

' '  I  cannot  but  regard  the  communication"  (quoted  above,  and 
repeated  by  the  President  in  a  despatch  dated  March  7th)  "  under 
acknowledgment  as  virtually  putting  an  end  to  further  negotiations 
for  an  amicable  adjustment"  ! — (Sir  R.  Barkly  to  President  Brand, 
March  8th,  1871.) 

Sir  H.  Barkly  expresses  this  opinion  because  the 
Free  State  would  not  ignore  its  own  existence  by  sub- 
mitting its  143  farms  within  the  line  claimed  by  Water- 
boer's  ipse  dixit  to  arbitration ;  because  its  Government 
refused  to  allow,  in  the  meantime,  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  British  magistrates  (whom  we  have  seen  were 
illegally  appointed  by  General  Hay)  to  be  exercised 
over  the  said  territory ;  and  because,  as  every  inde- 
pendent State  has  an  undoubted  right  to  do,  the  Free 
State  demanded  foreign  arbitration  in  preference  to 
that  of  British  officials  who  had  already  become 
parties  to  the  case  ! 

In  dignified  and  statesmanlike  language  President 
Brand  made  answer : 

"  Our  Government  regrets  that  it  cannot,  consistently  with  its 

2   A 


354  SIR  it.   barkly's   [NJUSTICE. 

duty,  adopt  the  arrangements  which,  have  been  entered  into  between 
your  Excellency  and  the  President  of  the  South  African  Eepublic 
(a),  as  far  as  the  lands  to  the  south  side  of  the  Yaal  River,  included 
within  the  Vetberg  line,  and  the  line  claimed  from  Raman,  vid 
David's  Graf,  to  Platberg,  are  concerned,  which  contain  one 
hundred  and  forty  "  (?  143)  "  farms,  of  which  twenty-nine  "  (?  33) 
"  are  British  land  certificates,  and  over  which  our  Courts  have 
exercised  jurisdiction,  and  which  have  been  in  possession  of  our 
people  for  a  number  of  years  ;  for  we  consider  our  title  to  that  as 
clear,  and  beyond  any  doubt.  And  to  consent  to  the  appointment  of 
a  special  magistrate  by  the  British  Government  and  by  the  Chief 
Waterboer  would  be  an  abandonment  of  our  rights  which  we 
cannot  make,  ivoidd  confer  on  Waterboer  a  jurisdiction  over  that 
territory  which  he  has  never  had  or  exercised,  and  would  give  rise  to 
endless  complications  and  difficulties,  which  we  are  bound  to 
prevent. 

"  And  the  Government  notices  issued  by  Mr.  Campbell  made  it 
impossible  for  our  Government  to  do  otherwise  than  to  maintain  its 
rights  to  that  part  of  the  country."  (These  notices  are  quoted 
verbatim  pp.  264 — 266,  Chapter  XII. — President  Brand  to  Sir  H. 
Barldy,  March  9  th,  1871.) 

(a)  The  "  arrangements  "  to  which  reference  is  made 
was  the  submission  of  the  right  to  the  land  between 
the  Vaal  and  Hart's  rivers  to  arbitration  by  the 
claimants,  Waterboer,  the  S.A.  Republic,  and  certain 
Kafir  tribes.  Sir  H.  Barkly,  as  those  who  have  ob- 
served his  one-sided  and  unjust  policy  may  imagine, 
carefully  conceals  the  fact  that,  whereas  the  lands  so 
submitted  to  arbitration  by  the  South  African  Republic 
were  not,  and  never  had  been,  occupied  by  its  sub- 
jects, the  territory  he  required  the  Free  State  to  deal 
with  in  that  way  was  equally  as  much  an  integral  part 
of  itself  as  its  capital  city,  Bloemfontein  !  He  thus 
replies  to  the  above  quoted  despatch : 

' '  As  your  Honour  has,  from  first  to  last,  made  no  such  proposi- 
tion" ('for  a  prompt  solution  of  the  boundary  question,  either  by 
arbitration  or  any  other  possible  mode'),  "but  has  confined  your- 


PROOF   OF    SIR    H.    BARKLY's    MISSTATEMENTS.        355 

6elf  to  refusing  to  allow  the  claims  of  the  Free  State  to  be  submitted  to 
arbitration  of  any  sort  (a),  this  attempt  to  shift  the  responsibility 
for  the  result  to  the  British  Government  and  its  agents  .  .  . 
appears  to  me  perfectly  futile." — (Sir  H.  Barkly  to  President  Brand, 
March  20tli,  1871.) 

(a)  Here  is  another  most  deliberate  and  inexcu- 
sable perversion  of  the  truth  !  Have  we  not  seen  that 
President  Brand  had  already  frequently  offered  to 
submit  the  right  of  his  country  to  the  Campbell  lands, 
as  well  as  the  question  of  British  intervention,  to 
the  u  decision  of  any  independent  power "  ?  Sir  H. 
Barkly  of  course  ignores  the  fact  that,  although  the 
Free  State  had  paid  the  Chief,  Adam  Kok,  in  hard 
cash  for  the  purchase  of  the  Campbell  lands,  still, 
in  order  to  meet  him  in  an  amicable  spirit,  its  Govern- 
ment had,  in  response  to  his  unfair  demands,  offered 
to  put  its  right  to  arbitration  ! 

Early  in  February,  Mr.  Campbell,  the  special 
magistrate  illegally  appointed  to  the  diamond  fields 
by  General  Hay,  issued  the  aggressive  notices 
referred  to  in  President  Brand's  despatch  of  March 
9th,  whereby  he  publicly  declared  his  intention  of 
invading  Free  State  territory  by  virtue  of  Waterboer's 
authority.  Early  in  March  the  Government  of  the 
Orange  Free  State  called  out  a  commando  of  1,000 
men,  with  4  guns,  aud  moved  that  force  to  a  position 
within  a  few  miles  of  Pniel,  in  order  to  guard  the 
frontier,  prevent  either  the  threatened  invasion  of 
"  100  armed  and  mounted  police  .  .  .  on  the 
Pniel  side  of  the  river,"  or  the  establishment  of  any 
authority  in  the  name  of  Waterboer. 

News  of  this  action  reached  Sir  H.  Barkly  on  the 
same  day  he  wrote  the  last  of  his  arbitration  dictums 

2  a  2 


350  THE    FREE   STATE   COMMANDO. 

— the  mendacious  assertion  that  the  President  had 
"  refused  arbitration  of  any  sort."  Cunningly  dis- 
torting this  rightful,  necessary,  and  legitimate  appli- 
cation of  the  posse  comitatus  (or  what  answers  to  it  in 
that  State),  Sir  H.  Barkly,  in  a  second  despatch  to  the 
President,  dated  March  20th,  1871,  terms  the  move- 
ment one  for  "  the  purpose  of  coercing  British  diggers  P' 
and  u  an  attempt  to  levy  war  upon  the  Queen  of  England  /" 

Of  course,  the  fact  that  the  commando  was  called 
out  to  resist  a  threatened  attack  by  Waterboer's 
special  magistrate  and  representative,  appointed  by 
that  Chiefs  commission  over  territory  claimed  by  him, 
but  actually  occupied  during  many  years  by  the 
Free  State,  is  not  mentioned  ! 

In  a  despatch,  dated  Bloemfontein,  March  23,  1871, 
President  Brand  thus  replies  to  Sir  H.  Barkly's 
distorted  views  : 

"I  have  the  honour  to  begin  by  stating  that  the  Government 
and  people  of  the  Orange  Free  State,  by  the  burgher  force  which  it 
has  been  under  the  unpleasant  necessity  of  sending  to  the  vicinity 
of  .  .  .  Pniel,  have  not  the  remotest  intention  or  idea  of 
attempting  to  levy  war  upon  Her  Majesty  the  Queen  of  England, 
.  and  that  this  commando  is  only  intended  to  protect  our  rights, 
maintain  peace  and  order,  and  defend  the  territory  transferred  and 
made  over  by  Her  Majesty's  Government  to  the  Government  of  the 
Orange  Free  State  by  Article  I.  of  the  Convention  of  the  23rd  Feb., 
1854"  (see  Chapter  III.),  "  if  Captain  Waterboer  should,  in  con- 
formity with  the  Government  notices  mentioned  in  my  letter  of  the 
22nd  of  last  month,  attempt  to  assert  sovereign  authority  and 
exercise  jurisdiction  over  the  140  "  (143)  "  farms,  including  29  " 
(33)  "  British  land  certificates,  referred  to  in  my  letter  of  the  9th 
instant." 

It  need  hardly  be  added  that  Sir  H.  Barkly  per- 
sisted in  his  interpretation  that  the  commando  was 
an  act  of  hostility  against  the  Queen. 


RESOLUTIONS   OF   FREE   STATE   VOLKSRAAD.  357 

Influenced,  no  doubt,  by  the  warlike  tendency  of 
Sir  H.  Barkly's  communications,  as  is  usual,  the 
weakest  went  to  the  wall,  and  the  Free  State  was 
driven  to  consent  to  arbitration  concerning  part  of 
its  undoubted  territory. 

On  the  5th  of  April,  1871,  the  Free  State  Parlia- 
ment, or  Volksraad,  adopted  certain  resolutions,  of 
which  the  following  are  extracts  : 

"  As  His  Excellency  .  .  .  lias  declared  that  a  reference  to  arbitra- 
tion is  the  only  proposal  which  the  British  Government  has  em- 
powered him  to  make,  and  that  the  injurious  notices  of  the  Special 
Magistrate,  Mr.  John  Campbell,*  could  remain  a  dead  letter  or  be 
withdrawn,  if  any  proposal  whatever  were  made  on  the  part  of  our 
Government  to  bring  the  question  which  has  been  raised  to  a  speedy  settle- 
ment, and  as  the  Volksraad  is  invariably  desirous  to  show  on  every 
occasion  that  it  desires  nothing  more  fervently  than  to  remain  on  the 
most  friendly  terms  with  the  British  Government,  as  long  as  it  does 
not  thereby  become  unfaithful  to  its  oath  and  duty,  and  the  proper  main- 
tenance {behartiging)  and  protection  of  the  interests  committed  to  it,  the 
Volksraad  declares  itself  willing  to  accept  the  proposed  arbitration,  pro- 
vided the  conditions  on  which  it  shall  be  referred  are  in  accordance  with 
justice  and  equity. 

"  As  the  matter  in  question  has  for  several  months  engaged  the 
general  attention  in  South  Africa,  the  Volksraad  feels  convinced, 
that  everyone  here  has  already  formed  an  opinion  for  himself  about 
it,  and  that  it  can  therefore  scarcely  be  expected  that  impartial  and 
unprejudiced  persons  could  be  found  here,  who  could  be  eligible 
arbitrators. 

"  The  Volksraad  maintains  that  it  is  clear  that  the  lands  claimed 
on  behalf  of  Captain  Waterboer  have  been  for  years  in  possession 
of  the  Orange  Free  State ;  that  they  were  enregistered  in  our  Public 
Records,  and  have  been  partly  so  enregistered  by  British  function- 
aries at  the  time  when  these  lands  were  under  the  British  Govern- 
ment ;  that  their  inhabitants  have  constantly  acknowledged  our 
authority,  have  been  subject  to  our  jurisdiction,  have  enjoyed  the 

*  Vide  p.  167,  Blue  Book,  "  Correspondence  respecting  the  affairs  of 
the  Cape  of  Good  Hope." — London,  17th  August,  1871. 


358  THE  VOLKSKAAD  AGAIN  PROPOSES  ARBITRATION. 

rights  of  burghers  of  the  Orange  Free  State,  and  performed  their 
duties  as  such;  that  neither  Captain  Waterboer  nor  his  subjects  are 
in  the  occupation  of  the  said  grounds;  that  the  diamond  diggers, 
who  are  now  there,  can  in  law  only  be  considered  as  being  there 
by  virtue  of  the  tacit  consent  of  our  Government,  and  by  virtue  of 
the  permission  of  the  owners  of  the  farms  within  the  limits  of  which 
they  are  situate,  and  that  those  lands  are  de  facto  still  in  possession  of 
and  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Orange  Free  State  :  according  to  these 
facts  the  Yolksraad  cannot  see  or  admit  the  equity  of  a  condition 
by  virtue  of  which  the  Orange  Free  State  would  be  deprived  of  the 
possession  and  jurisdiction  of  its  sovereign  rights  over  said  lands 
pending  a  decision  by  arbitration,  the  result  of  which  cannot, 
according  to  its  conviction,  be  otherwise  than  a  full  recognition  of 
the  justice  of  that  possession  and  those  sovereign  rights. 

"  The  Yolksraad  requests  and  empowers  the  State  President  to 
communicate  the  above  to  His  Excellency  the  High  Commissioner, 
and  in  pursuance  thereof  to  propose  to  Sis  Excellency  that  the  Head  of 
an  Independent  Foreign  power  he  requested  to  give  the  desired  decision  as 
arbitrator,  for  which  the  Yolksraad  has  the  honour  to  propose  to  the 
choice  of  the  British  Government  His  Majesty  the  Emperor  of 
Germany,  His  Majesty  the  King  of  the  Netherlands,  or  the  President 
of  the  United  States  of  America,  and  that,  pending  said  decision,  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  Orange  Free  State  over  the  disputed  grounds  be 
maintained  and  continued  to  be  exercised,  as  has  hitherto  been  the  case. 

"  The  State  President  is  also  requested  and  empowered  to  com- 
municate to  His  Excellency  that  the  Armed  Burgher  Force  which 
has  been  sent  out  will  be  recalled  as  soon  as  His  Excellency 
declares  his  willingness  to  accept  the  said  arbitration  on  the  before- 
mentioned  terms,  with  the  understanding  that  on  the  other  hand  on 
behalf  of  His  Excellency  the  before-mentioned  notices  of  the 
Special  Magistrate,  Mr.  John  Campbell,  will  be  withdrawn  with 
respect  to  the  grounds  situated  to  the  south  of  the  Yaal  River, 
within  the  Yetberg  line." — Carried. 

u  I  have,  &c, 

"J.  H.  Brand." 

In  reply  to  this  proposition,  Sir  H.  Barkly  made  it 
a  condition  that — 

"  the  armed  force  sent  to  coerce  Her  Majedy^s  subjects  into  a  recognition 
of  the  claims  of  the  Orange  Free  State  " — 


MORE   FALSE   REPORTS.  359 

should  first  be  withdrawn,  after  which  he  would  be 
"  prepared  to  discuss  these  propositions,  with  an  earnest 
desire  to  aid  in  bringing  about  some  just  and  reason- 
able arrangement  for  a  reference  of  all  matters  in 
dispute." 

As  usual,  in  his  report  of  these  circumstances  to 
Earl  Kimberley,  dated  "  Cape  Town,  April  17,  1871,*' 
Sir  H.  Barkly  entirely  misrepresented  them. 

Eeferring  to  the  commando,*  he  states  that  he  had 
received  President  Brand's  letter — 

"  disavowing  all  intention  of  resorting  to  offensive  warfare ;  this 
disclaimer  being  accompanied,  as  afterwards  appeared,  by  the  issue 
of  instructions  to  the  burghers,  whose  advanced  guard  had  already 
reached  Pniel,  to  fall  back  about  three  miles,  and  encamp  until  fur. 
ther  orders." 

(This  statement  is  simply  false.  No  advanced  guard 
ever  reached  Pniel.  The  commando  had  already  en- 
camped at  a  spot  about  three  miles  off.  The  only 
members  of  the  force  who  ever  came  to  Pniel  arrived 
unarmed,  as  private  individuals,  to  make  purchases, 
and  to  see  the  diamond  diggings.  I  was  present,  saw 
those  visitors,  and  can  vouch  for  the  peaceable  and 
private  nature  of  their  arrival.) 

"  Meanwhile  the  diggers  of  British  origin,  both  at  Pniel  and 
Cawood's  Hope,  on  learning  the  approach  of  the  commando,  applied 
to  the  Special  Magistrate  for  protection,  or  at  any  rate  for  a  supply 
of  arms  and  ammunition,  wherewith  to  defend  themselves." 

(So  far  as  "  Pniel "  is  concerned,  this  statement  is 
entirely  false,  like  the  former.  Pniel  was  then  under 
the   Government  of  Mr.  0.  J.  Truter,    the  Free  State 

*  Vide  p.  155,  Blue  Book,  "  Correspondence  respecting  the  affairs  of 
the  Cape  of  Good  Hope." — London,  17th  August,  1871. 


360      sir  li.  barkly's  falsi:  report  continued. 

Commissioner,  whose  rule  was  most  popular  and  satis- 
factory. I  deny  that  it  was  ever  publicly  known  that 
any  of  the  inhabitants  ajoplied  to  the  Special  Magistrate 
for  either  arms  or  protection.  I  do  not  believe  even  a 
secret  application  of  any  such  nature  was  made.  At 
all  events,  I  am  quite  certain  no  such  thing  was  ever 
known  at  Pniel ;  if  it  had  been,  as  I  enjoyed  the  honour 
of  a  personal  acquaintance  with  Mr.  Truter,  I  must 
have  heard  of  it ;  moreover,  I  am  sure  that  any  such 
attempt  to  create  a  disturbance  would  have  been 
dromptly  suppressed  by  the  Free  State  police,  under 
their  efficient  and  energetic  Inspector,  Mr.  J.  Gerald 
Donovan,  whose  efforts  would  have  been  readily  sup- 
ported by  almost  every  respectable  inhabitant  or 
digger  in  the  place.  With  regard  to  Cawood's  Hope, 
the  diggers  there  had  been  repeatedly  instigated  and 
encouraged  by  Mr.  Campbell  to  resist  Free  State  rule, 
but  out  of  several  thousands  only  172  responded  to  his 
intriguing \  and  applied  for  British  protection  !)* 

Sir.  H.  Barkly  continued  his  false  report  to  Earl 
Kimberley : — 

"Nothing  daunted,  however,  those  at  Cawood's  Hope  formed 
themselves  into  a  Mutual  Protection  Society,  to  defend  the  camp 
against  any  act  of  aggression  of  the  Free  State  Government ! 

"  The  people  of  Klip  Drift  and  Hebron,  though  not  themselves 
threatened,  decided  on  marching  to  the  aid  of  their  fellow-country- 
men, if  attacked." 

(Of  course,  it  is  plain,  by  the  use  of  the  terms  '*  those 
at  Cawood's  Hope,"  and  "  the  people  of  Klij3  Drift  and 
Hebron,"  that  Sir  II.  Barkly  implied  that  at  least  the 

*  Vide  Mr.  Campbell's  letter,  with  enclosed  petition,  to  Sir  H.  Barkly, 
p.  166,  lUue  Book,  "  Correspondence  respecting  the  affairs  of  the  Cape 
of  Good  Hope." — London,  17th  August,  1871. 


HIS   WHOLESALE   PERVERSION    OF   TRUTH.         361 

majority  of  the  people  at  all  three  places  had  adopted 
a  course  in  antagonism  to  the  Free  State ;  whereas, 
out  of  some  10,000  diggers,  172  constituted  the 
Cawood's  Hope  party,  and  barely  100  the  number  of 
the  nominal  volunteers  at  the  other  two  places.) 

Sir  H.  Barkly,  referring  to  the  arbitration  proposed 
on  the  5th  of  April  by  the  Free  State  Volksraad,  and 
the  stipulation  that,  pending  arbitration,  its  Govern- 
ment should  retain  possession  of  and  jurisdiction  over  the 
territory,  containing  143  of  its  farms,  which  it  had  enjoyed 
since  1854,  continues : 

"Under  present  circumstances,  the  acceptance  of  the  concluding 
stipulation  would  be  wholly  out  of  the  question,  even  if  Waterboer 
could  be  brought  to  assent  to  it  (!),  for  the  entire  population  of  the 
diamond  fields,  which  was  never  disposed  to  pay  much  respect  to 
the  Free  State,  has  been  so  thoroughly  alienated  by  its  late  futile 
threats  of  coercion,  that  they  would  refuse,  at  all  hazards,  to  he  governed 
by  it,  and  if  the  British  Government  withdrew  its  Special  Magistrate,  and 
withheld  protection,  a  war  of  races  would,  I  am  afraid,  begin  /" 

To  expose  such  wholesale  perversions  of  truth  as  the 
above,  in  moderate,  or  even  decent,  language  is  a  dif- 
ficult task  indeed.  Why,  at  the  time  he  wrote  such 
unmitigated  falsehood  and  absurdity  (April  17th,  1871), 
Sir  H.  Barkly  must  have  been  as  well  aware  as  I,  or 
any  of  the  people  in  the  country,  that  the  Government  of 
the  Free  State  was  then  in  the  actual  exercise  of  uncontrolled 
authority  and  jurisdiction  over  the  camps  and  diggings  of 
Pniel,  Robinson's  Kopje,  and  adjacent  places,  Du  Toitfs 
Pan,  Bultfontein  and  Alexander sfontein,  De  Beer^  and 
Jagersfontein — representing  a  population  of  at  least  7 ',000 
to  8,000  whites  !  Moreover,  it  is  notorious  throughout 
South  Africa ;  the  whole  press  has  for  months  teemed 
with  it ;  it  is  prominently  expressed  in  many  of  the 


362      H.   M.    GOVERNMENT   REFUSE  FOREIGN   ARBITRATION. 

speeches  delivered  in  the  Cape  Parliament  on  the 
debates  resulting  in  the  withdrawal  of  the  Bill  to  annex 
the  fields,  that  the  usurping  interregnum  or  brigand 
Junta,  established  by  force  a  few  weeks  after  the  pro- 
clamation of  the  27th  October,  1871,  has  never  enjoyed 
the  popularity,  has  never  been  able  to  satisfy  the 
digging  community,  or  preserve  peace  and  order  so 
well  as  the  Free  State  Government  it  ousted. 

No  wonder  that  after  the  gross  misrepresentations  of 
which  he  was  the  recipient,  Earl  Kimberley,  in  reply- 
ing to  Sir  H.  Barkly  by  a  despatch  dated  "  Downing 
Street,  June  3,  1871,"  declared  that  Her  Majesty's 
Government  "  must  therefore  decline  to  assent  to  the  terms 
of  arbitration  proposed  by  the  Volksraad"  though  it  may 
not  be  possible  to  discover  upon  what  law,  right,  or 
international  custom  such  refusal  is  based. 

Subsequent  to  the  withdrawal  of  the  commando  by 
the  Free  State  Government,  Sir  H.  Barkly,  in  a  des- 
patch dated  "  Cape  Town,  May  13,  1871,"  replied  to 
the  arbitration  proposed  on  the  5th  of  April,  by  the 
Free  State  Volksraad — offering  to  refer  the  whole 
question  of  territorial  boundary  and  dispute  to  the 
arbitration  of  "the  Head  of  an  Independent  Foreign 
Power" — to  this  effect : 

"  I  have  already,  however,  written  home  for  instructions  on  the 
subject,  and  do  not  apprehend  that  any  insuperable  objection  will 
be  found  to  exist  to  the  proposal." 

In  reply  to  the  "  instructions"  solicited  by  Sir  H. 
Barkly,  in  a  despatch  dated  "  Downing  Street,  June 
8,  1871,"  Earl  Kimberley  states  : 

"I  attach  so  much  value  to  your  judgment  that  I  am  reluctant  to 
differ  from  you  on  this  point,  but  it  seems  to  me  that  to  admit  the 


THE   EEFUSAL    CONSIDERED.  363 

action  of  Foreign  Powers  in  these  South  African  questions  might 
lead  to  very  serious  embarrassments,  and  I  cannot  therefore  authorize 
you  to  assent  to  foreign  arbitration  on  any  of  the  points  at  issue  !  " 

This  is  the  first  occasion  on  which  the  British  Go- 
vernment took  the  initiative  in  wronging  the  Free 
State  in  the  matter  of  the  robbery  of  the  diamond 
fields.  Hitherto  it  is  but  fair  to  deem  them  blame- 
less, by  reason  of  the  deception  to  which  they  were 
subjected  by  the  Colonial  authorities.  The  Orange 
Free  State  having  been  fully  recognized  as  a  free  and 
independent  state  by  the  British  Government  in  1854, 
and  since  then  by  France,  the  United  States  of 
America,  Spain,  Italy,  Austria,  the  Netherlands, 
Prussia,  Russia,  and  the  North  German  Confederation 
(copies  of  which  official  recognitions  I  have  by  my 
hand  at  the  moment  of  writing),  by  what  known  right 
does  Earl  Kimberley  refuse  to  the  Free  State  a  privi- 
ledge  possessed  by  every  people  and  power  a  party  to 
and  bound  by  the  ties,  customs,  and  regulations  of 
international  law  ?  The  Orange  Free  State  has  equally 
as  much  right  to  demand  foreign  arbitration  in  its 
differences  with  Great  Britain  as  have  the  United 
States,  Portugal,  Brazil,  or  any  nation  with  which 
disputes  have  ever  been  so  adjusted. 

There  is  but  one  possible  explanation  for  the  unfair, 
illegal,  and  ungenerous  policy  pursued  by  Her  Ma- 
jesty's Government  in  this  case :  Earl  Kimberley  and 
his  colleagues  must  be  troubled  with  a  conviction  that 
wrong  has  already  been  done  to  the  Free  State  by 
themselves  and  their  representatives  at  the  Cape,  and 
therefore,  dreading  the  result  of  correct  and  impartial 
arbitration,  and  deeming  the  Free  State  too  weak  to 
enforce  or  obtain  proper  treatment,  they  act  towards 


3G4         GOVERNOR  BAEKLY'S  ARROGANCE 

it  with  such  flagrant  injustice.  Is  it  conduct  worthy 
of  the  Government  of  this  great  and  powerful  nation  ? 
Is  it  creditable  to  Englishmen,  or  consonant  with  their 
assumed  characteristic  of  "  fair-play  "  ?  If  such  be 
not  a  true  explanation  of  the  motives  actuating  the 
present  British  Government,  how  came  they  to  sup- 
pose that  the  course  of  right  and  justice  could  "lead 
to  very  serious  embarrassments  "  ? 

But  even  before  Earl  Kimberley's  refusal  of  foreign 
arbitration  reached  him,  Sir  H.  Barkly  retracted  his 
formerly  expressed  assent  to  that  course.  As  in  his 
reply  to  the  Volksraad' s  proposition  of  April  the  5th, 
he  had  reiterated  all  Waterboer's  unsupported  asser- 
tions and  unfounded  claims,  and  had  moreover  as- 
sumed that  the  questions  and  matters  in  dispute  were 
between  that  petty  Chief  and  the  Free  State;  the 
Volksraad,  by  a  series  of  further  resolutions,  repeated 
its  projDosals  of  April  5th,  and  pointed  out  that  the 
dispute  was  between  their  Government  and  that  of 
the  Colony,  not  Waterboer. — [President  Brand  to  Sir 
H.  Barkly,  June  6th,  1871.) 

In  his  reply  to  the  above,  Sir  H.  Barkly  presumes 
to  state : 

"Finding,  therefore,  that  all  attempts  to  arrive  at  a  fair  (?) 
settlement  of  the  question  by  means  of  arbitration  have  so  far  failed 
...  I  am  reluctantly  forced  to  the  conclusion  that  the  proposals 
now  made  by  the  Volksraad  can  lead  to  no  practical  result  ;  and 
that  it  only  remains  for  Her  Majesty's  Government  to  determine 
what  further  measures  should  be  adopted  for  the  support  of  her 
ally,  and  for  securing  the  rights  and  privileges  of  her  subjects  !  " — 
(Sir  If.  Barkly  to  President  Brand )  June  22,  1871.) 

In  this  despatch  the  Governor  gave  four  reasons  for 
arriving  at  the  above  arrogant  and  false  conclusion. 
1.   The   "  length  of  time  "  that  the  proposed  arbitra- 


ARBITRATION    SHIRKED.  365 

tion  would  occupy.  2.  The  fact  "  that  while  the  dis- 
cussion progresses  the  lands  in  dispute  are  being  de- 
prived of  their  chief  value  by  having  the  diamonds 
extracted  therefrom  under  licence  and  authority  of 
your  Honour's  Government."  3.  "  That  pending  the 
decision  of  the  arbitrator,  the  Government  of  the 
Orange  Free  State  shall  have  exclusive  jurisdiction 
over  so  much  of  the  country  in  dispute  as  lies  on  the 
left  bank  of  the  Vaal  River."  4.  That  the  Volksraad 
consider  the  dispute  as  "  between  the  British  Govern- 
ment and  that  of  the  Free  State." 

Of  course.  Sir  H.  Barkly  carefully,  as  usual,  ignores 
the  fact  that  the  Free  State  was  then  in  possession  of, 
and  exercising  exclusive  jurisdiction  over,  South  Ada- 
mantia,  the  territory  in  question,  as  it  had  done  for  a 
period  varying  from  thirteen  to  twenty  years — that 
foreign  arbitration  is  customary  between  independent 
States,  regardless  of  relative  strength  and  "  length  of 
time,"  and  is  in  accordance  with  international  law — 
that  the  Free  State  had  a  perfect  right  to  extract  the 
"  chief  value"   from  lands  so  long  its  own — that,  as 
he  was  awaiting  "  instructions  "  from  Earl  Kimberley, 
there  could   be  no  question   as  to  the  dispute  being 
between  the  British  and  Free  State  Governments ! 

The  truth  was,  that  any  subterfuge  was  seized  upon 
to  shirk  arbitration.  The  Cape  Government  only 
required  that  "  chief value ,"  those  precious  "  diamonds" 
the  fat  offices  and  magnified  revenue  of  the  diamond 
fields  for  themselves. 

Upon  learning  the  nature  of  Earl  Kimberley's 
despatch  to  the  Governor  of  the  3rd  of  June,  de- 
clining foreign  arbitration,  the  Government  of  the 
Orange   Free    State  at  once  selected  one  of  its  most 


366      THE    FREE    MATE    AGAIN    PROPOSES    ARBITRATION. 

distinguished  citizens,  Mr.  H.  A.  L.  Hamelberg, 
member  of  the  Volksraad,  and  commissioned  him  to 
proceed  to  England,  in  order,  as  Representative  and 
Plenipotentiary  of  the  Orange  Free  State,  to  lay  their 
case  before  Her  Majesty's  Government. 

In  the  meanwhile  President  Brand  made  another 
effort  to  obtain  arbitration,  by  the  following  pro- 
posal, viz., 

''The  appointment  of  three  commissioners,  to  be  selected 
by  your  Excellency,  and  three  to  be  chosen  by  the  Government 
of  the  Orange  Free  State,  to  take  evidence,"  etc.;  "and  in  case 
they  could  not  agree,  a  reference  of  all  the  points  at  issue 
between  the  two  Grovernments  to  the  final  decision  of  any  of  the 
arbitrators  proposed  by  the  Yolksraad." — [President  Brand  to  Sir 
S.Barlly,  October  3,   1871.) 

In  his  reply  to  this  fair  but  submissive  proposal,  the 
Governor  agrees  to  a  Commission,  " provided  all  idea 

OF  SUBSEQUENT  REFERENCE  TO  FOREIGN  ARBITRATION  BE 

abandoned  "  ! — thus  following  Earl  Kimberley's  in- 
structions, and  again  thwarting  all  prospect  of  arbitra- 
tion. The  despatch  bears  date  October  23rd,  1871 ; 
but  only  four  days  later  Sir  H.  Barkly  proceeded,  as  we 
have  seen  in  Chapter  XIV.,  to  declare  and  proclaim  the 
territory  in  dispute  as  British  territory  annexed  to  the 
Cape  ! 

In  the  month  of  August,  Mr.  Hamelberg  arrived  in 
London,  and  at  once 

"  addressed  a  letter  to  .  .  .  Earl  Granville,  and  requested  his 
Lordship  to  grant  (him)  an  interview,  in  order  to  present  (his) 
credentials,  and  state  .  .  .  the  objects  of  (his)  mission." — {Mr. 
Hamelberg  to  Earl  Kimberley,  London,  Octobers,   1871). 

Mr.  Hamelberg's  letter  to  Earl  Granville  remained 
unanswered  for  four  weeks  !     A  reply  then  came 

u  to  the  effect  that  such  communications  as  (he  might)  have  to 


MR.  hamelberg's  mission.  367 

address  to  Her  Majesty's  Government  should  be  made  through 
Hei-  Majesty's  Secretary  of  State  for  the  Colonies "  !  (Idem). 

Here  follows  the  reply  of  "  Her  Majesty's  Secretary 
of  State  for  the  Colonies  "  : 

11  Lord  Kimberley  desires  me  to  inform  you,  in  reply,  that  he 

CANNOT     RECEIVE     YOU     IN     ANV     DIPLOMATIC     CHARACTER,    EITHER   AS 

plenipotentiary  or  agent,  but  that  if  you  wish  to  see  him 
upon  the  distinct  understanding  that  his  Lordship  does  not,  by 
receiving  you,  recognize  you  in  any  diplomatic  character,  his 
Lordship  will  be  ready  to  appoint  one  o'clock  on  Saturday,  the 
21st  instant,  for  an  interview"! — {Robert  G.  TV.  Herbert  to  H.  A. 
L.  Hamelberg,  Esq.,    October  7 ',    1871.) 

According  to  the  instructions  of  the  British  Govern- 
ment, conveyed  in  a  despatch  from  the  Duke  of  New- 
castle to  Sir  George  Clerk,  dated  "  Downing  Street, 
November  14th,  1853,"  the  Convention  entered  into 
with  the  Orange  Free  State  in  1854  was  to  possess* 
"the  binding  effect  of  a  treaty  between  independent 
powers" 

In  1868  a  deputation  from  the  Free  State  concerning 
the  Basuto  question  was  received  in  its  official  capacity 
by  both  Lord  Stanley  and  the  Duke  of  Buckingham  (the 
then  Foreign  and  Colonial  Secretaries  of  State).  From 
1854  the  Free  State  has  always  been  fully  recognized  as 
an  independent  power  by  successive  British  Govern- 
ments ;  its  right  to  diplomatic  representation  by  Consuls 
and  Plenipotentiaries  has  never  before  been  questioned. 

The  United  States,  France,  Holland,  Italy,  Spain, 
Austria,  Prussia,  and  Russia,  have  some  received,  and 
the  rest  agreed  to  receive  its  Consular  Agents  and  Am- 
bassadors. 

But,  in  1871,  the  Members  ot  Mr.  Gladstone's 
Cabinet,  by  refusing  to  receive  Mr.  Hamelberg  i '  in  any 

*Vide  p.  88,  Blue  Book,  No-  3,  "  Orange  River  Correspondence,"  1851-54. 


3G8       H.    M.    GOVERNMENT   ADDS    INSULT    TO    INJURY. 

diplomatic  character,"  most  grossly  insulted  the  Free 
State  in  addition  to  having  injured  it.  Of  course,  if 
Her  Majesty's  Ministers  choose  to  refuse  a  reception  to 
any  foreign  representative,  they  are  at  liberty  to  do  so  ; 
there  is  no  law  to  make  them  act  with  honour  and 
courtesy,  according  to  the  principles  of  right  and 
justice,  in  consonance  with  their  duty,  with  inter- 
national law,  and  with  the  terms  of  treaties.  But 
would  they  have  dared  to  treat  the  Special  Plenipoten- 
tiary of  any  powerful  military  state  with  such  in- 
dignity? And,  if  not,  upon  what  possible  grounds 
can  their  refusal  to  receive  a  weaker  nation's  Ambas- 
sador be  justified  ? 

Mr.  Hamelberg  had  as  good  a  right  to  official  inter- 
course with  the  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs 
as  the  Prussian  Ambassador ;  but,  in  order  to  evade  a 
disagreeable  subject,  the  very  probable  proof  that  Her 
Majesty's  Government  and  her  representatives  at  the 
Cape  had  wronged  the  Free  State,  as  well  as  for  the 
purpose  of  stifling  its  complaints,  and  avoiding  foreign 
arbitration,  a  most  mean  and  dishonourable  course 
was  adopted. 

Earl  Granville  refused  to  see  Mi\  Hamelberg,  and 
referred  him  to  Earl  Kimberley ;  Earl  Kimberley 
refused  to  receive  him  officially,  and  referred  him 
back  to  the  Governor  of  the  Cape — as  if,  indeed,  the 
Orange  Free  State  had  been  a  British  colony  or  a  pro- 
vince of  the  Cape  dependency,  instead  of  a  free  and 
independent  power,  possessing  the  undoubted  right  of 
direct  official  communication  with  Her  Majesty's 
Government !  Of  course  this  bandying  about  of  the 
Free  State  Plenipotentiary  from  one  to  another,  the 
breaking  of  official  and  diplomatic  relations,  and  the 


EARL    KIMBERLEY    DELUDED.  369 

final  relegation  of  him  to  the  Colonial  Governor — 
the  very  official  of  whose  unlawful  and  aggressive 
acts  he  came  to  complain — was  not  only  tantamount 
to  a  declaration  of  war,  but  plainly  shows  how  futile 
have  been  the  efforts  of  the  Free  State  to  obtain  either 
justice  or  a  fair  and  impartial  arbitration. 

In  a  despatch  to  Sir  H.  Barkly,  dated  "  Downing 
Street,  November  2,  1871,"  describing  his  unofficial 
interview  with  Mr.  Hamelberg,  Earl  Kimberley 
assumes  as  fact  all  the  false  statements  of  the  Governor, 
which  have  been  already  exposed  in  these  pages. 
He  states :  — 

"I  observed  that*  when  ...  on  the  discovery  of  the  diamond  fields, 
a  large  population  of  diggers  established  itself  in  the  immediate 
vicinity  of  the  Colony,  it  was  obvious  that  there  was  danger  of 
serious  disorders  arising  on  our  frontier,  unless  some  steps  were 
taken  to  provide  a  regular  government  in  the  territory — and  we  had, 
as  he  knew,  authorized  you  to  accept  the  proffered  allegiance  of  the 
Chief,  Waterboer,  upon  certain  conditions." 

That  a  "  regular  Government "  was  exercised  by 
the  Free  State  over  the  territory  referred  to,  a  better 
and  more  popular  Government,  moreover,  than  that 
of  the  brigand  Junta  which  replaced  it ;  and  that 
those  "  certain  conditions"  which  could  alone  have 
made  the  latter  even  in  the  eyes  of  one  party  to  the 
dispute  legal,  according  to  British  law,  were  never 
observed,  but,  on  the  contrary,  were  deliberately 
violated  by  Sir  H.  Barkly,  Earl  Kimberley  does  not 
state. 

Either  he  must  be  grossly  deceived,  or  readily 
deceives   himself.     At    all    events    his    reasons    and 

#  Vide  p.  44,  Blue  Book,    "Further  correspondence  respecting  the 
affairs  of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope."     London,  6th  February,  1872. 

2    B 


370  earl  kimbebley's  pleasantry. 

premises   are,    as   these   pages   have    shown,    utterly- 
fallacious. 

Referring  to  his  rejection  of  foreign  arbitration, 
Earl  Kimberley  states : — 

"It  was,  I  thought,  for  the  interests  both  of  the  Free  State  and 
the  Colony  that  no  Foreign  State  should  be  called  in,  and  that  these 
matters,  which  were  really  quite  of  a  domestic  character,  and  which  con- 
cern no  one  outside  South  Africa,  should  be  settled  amicably  amongst 
ourselves"  ! 

Is  this  a  "goak,"  or  are  we  to  "  please  read  ironical," 
as  Artemus  Ward  would  have  said  ? 

If  Earl  Kimberley  deems  the  forcible  invasion  and 
seizure  of  Free  State  territory  a  matter  of  "  really  quite 
a  domestic  character,"  and  the  policy  which  we  have 
shown  that  he  and  the  Cape  Government  pursued 
towards  the  Free  State  as  tending  to  settle  the  diffi- 
culty "  amicably  amongst  ourselves,"  what  an  extra- 
ordinary imagination  must  the  noble  lord  possess  !  It 
is  quite  certain  that  the  Government  and  people  of  that 
State  think  very  differently — a  sentiment  in  which 
they  are  joined  by  the  great  majority  of  Englishmen 
and  other  Europeans  in  South  Africa. 

In  response  to  Mr.  Hamelberg's  representation, 
"that  it  was  essential  the  umpire  should  be  entirely 
independent  of  either  party,"  Earl  Kimberley  states  : 

"  I  replied  that  I  must  adhere  to  the  refusal  to  agree  to  the  refer- 
ence of  the  dispute  to  a  foreign  power.  ...  At  the  same  time,  if 
the  Free  State  were  willing,  without  further  delay,  to  refer  to  two 
Commissioners  .  .  .  the  question  of  boundary  alone,  it  might  be 
open  for  consideration  ivhether  some  impartial  person  unconnected  with 
South  Africa  might  not  be  appointed  as  umpire." 

And  this  unofficial,  hypothetical  proposition  was  all 
that  Mr.  Hamelberg's  mission  obtained  ! 


A  VAIN   HOPE   FOR  JUSTICE.  371 

In  his  speech  on  the  opening  of  the  session  extraor- 
dinary of  the  Volksraad  on  the  4th  December,  1871, 
President  Brand,  referring  to  the  false  arguments  which 
had  been  applied  against  the  Free  State  in  the  diamond 
fields  dispute  by  the  British  and  Colonial  Govern- 
ments, expressed  the  hope  that — ■ 

"  When  these  and  other  erroneous  impressions,  of  which  we  are  yet 
unaware,  shall  have  been  put  in  the  proper  light  by  our  represen- 
tative to  Her  Majesty's  Government,  I  fully  expect  that  we  shall  be 
reinstated  in  the  enjoyment  of  our  violated  right ;  and  that,  although 
this  young  State,  with  its  population  limited  to  thousands,  cannot 
possibly  cope' in  armed  resistance  with  large  and  powerful  England, 
with  its  population  of  millions,  still  the  sense  of  justice  and  equity 
entertained  by  the  Government  and  people  of  Great  Britain  will  lead 
to  the  restitution  of  our  infringed  rights." 

How  lamentably  this  hope  failed,  so  far  as  the 
British  Government  was  concerned,  we  have  just  seen. 
Neither  President  Brand  nor  the  Free  State  Volksraad 
and  Government  can  have  anticipated  the  injustice 
and  indignity  with  which  our  present  ministry  would 
treat  them  in  the  person  of  their  Plenipotentiary.  I 
leave  to  my  English  readers  the  humiliating  reflection 
as  to  the  apparent  contrast  but  moral  similitude  between 
that  style  of  policy  and  the  late  conduct  of  Her 
Majesty's  Government  in  the  Alabama  and  San  Juan 
boundary  arbitrations.  To  cringe  and  submit  to  the 
strong,  but  to  bully  and  wrong  the  very  weak,  seems 
now  the  mot  d^ordre  of  our  foreign  policy. 

I  cannot  terminate  the  foregoing  review  of  the  arbi- 
tration question  up  to  the  period  of  the  mean  and  con- 
temptible insult  to  which  the  Free  State  Plenipoten- 
tiary was  subjected  by  Her  Majesty's  Government, 
without  quoting  from  President  Brand's  most  admirable, 
logical,  and  statesmanlike  exposition  of  the  case  in  his 

2  b  2 


372  PRESIDENT    BRAND'S  ABLE   EXPOSITION. 

speech  on  the   opening  of  the  Volksraad  on  the  4th 
December,  1871,  the  following  extract: 

"Inasmuch  as  it  is  an  acknowledged  principle  of  international 
law  that  all  independent  natives — be  their  relative  power  or 
resources  what  they  may — must  be  treated  on  terms  of  equality 
when  it  is  sought  to  decide  questions  arising  between  them  on  the 
principles  of  justice  and  equity,  and  not  of  arbitrary  power  and  violence, 
I  have  therefore  failed  to  perceive  any  reason  why,  in  this  question 
which  has  been  raised  by  the  Government  of  Her  Britannic  Majesty 
and  the  Cape  Colony  against  the  Government  of  the  Orange  Free 
State,  any  deviation  should  take  place  from  the  established  rule  " 
(foreign  arbitration),  "and  why  the  final  umpirage  thereof  be 
submitted  to  the  subjects  and.  functionaries  of  the  British  Grovern- 
ment, which  is  a  party  thereto." 

The  correspondence  which  has  taken  place  between 
the  Cape  and  Free  State  Governments  on  the  subject 
of  arbitration,  subsequent  to  Earl  Kimberley's  hypo- 
thetical proposition  to  Mr.  Hamelberg,  has  not  yet 
(February,  1873)  led  to  any  practical  result. 

In  a  despatch,  dated  "  Bloemfontein,  8th  February, 
1872,"  President  Brand  requested  to  know  whether 
Sir  H.  Barkly  was — 

"  willing  to  refer  the  question  at  present  existing  between  our 
Governments,  relative  to  the  lands  recently  proclaimed  by  your 
Excellency,  to  such  arbitration?" 

The  Governor,  in  a  reply,  dated  "  Capetown,  2nd 
March,  1872,"  evaded  the  question,  and  put  off  arbi- 
tration by  the  following  quibble  : 

"The  inquiries  .  .  .  are  accompanied  by  no  intimation  of 
the  concurrence  of  the  Free  State  Government  in  the  mode  of 
arbitration  described !" 

Sir  H.  Barkly  also  refers  to  his  views  expressed  in  a 


GOVERNOR  BARKLY'S  PERVERSION  OF  FACTS.   373 

former  letter  as  being  still  the  terms  on  which  alone 
he  would  consent  to  any  arrangement — 

"  Provided  all  idea  of  subsequent  reference  to  Foreign  Arbitration  be 
abandoned." 

In  conclusion,  he  states  that : — 

"It  will  be  essential  the  Government  of  the  Orange  Free  State 
.  .  .  should  make  ...  a  precise  and  complete  statement 
.  .  .  of  the  specific  grounds  upon  which  that  Government 
claims  territory  within  the  limits  of  British  Griqualand  /" 

Considering  that,  by  an  act  of  brigandage  (and  I 
challenge  contradiction),  in  direct  violation  of  the 
special  "  conditions"  which  alone  would  have  made 
the  act  legal  according  to  the  laws  of  one  only  of  the 
two  parties  to  the  dispute,  Sir  H.  Barkly  had  annexed 
the  diamond  fields,  and  proclaimed  them  part  of 
"  British  Griqualand, "  and,  therefore,  that  no  such 
State  legally  existed,  the  supreme  insolence  and  arro- 
gance of  this  assertion  is  indeed  remarkable  !  More- 
over, it  is  Sir  H,  Barkly,  Waterboer,  and  Co.  who  have 
setup  "  claims  "  to  part  of  the  Free  State  ! 

In  a  despatch,  dated  25th  March,  1872,  President 
Brand  again  proposed  arbitration  in  the  following 
words  : — 

"I  shall  be  prepared,  upon  receiving  your  Excellency's  concurrence 
in  my  proposal,  to  recommend  to  the  Yolksraad  ...  to  refer 
the  question  ...  to  one  or  more  Commissioners  to  be  chosen 
by  your  Excellency,  and  a  like  number  by  this  Government,  as  pro- 
posed in  my  letter  of  the  3rd  October  last ;  and,  in  case  that  they  could 
not  agree,  to  the  final  award  of  some  distinguished  person  of  ability 
residing  in  Europe,  not  being  a  British  subject,  or  connected 
with  the  Orange  Free  State,  to  be  named  by  the  Dutch  Ambassador 
in  London." 

But  in  his  reply,   dated  "  Cape  Town,  16th  April, 


371  SIR  n.   barkly's   injustice. 

1872,"  Sir  H.  Barkly,  while  professing  his  willingness 
1 '  to  assume  the  responsibility  of  concurrence  in  such  a 
proposal .  .  on  hearing  from  your  Honour  that  the  Volks- 
raad  consents/'  really  shirks  and  prevents  it ;  first,  by 
objecting  to  the  choice  of  the  "  Dutch  Ambassador  in 
London  "  as  the  delegate  to  choose  the  final  umpire ; 
secondly,  by  the  insertion  of  an  impossible  condition, 
viz.,  "  It  would  of  course  be  essential  that  a  formal 
toaiver  of  all  claims  under  that  Convention"  (of  Feb. 
23rd,  1854 — see  Chapter  III.)  "  should  be  among  the 
resolutions  adopted  !" 

As  it  was  upon  that  very  Convention  that  the 
political  existence  of  the  Orange  Free  State  as  an 
independent  power  was  originally  based ;  and  as  it 
still  constitutes  its  treaty  with,  and  recognition  by, 
Great  Britain,  any  such  " formal  waiver"  was  ob- 
viously impossible,  and  would,  indeed,  have  been  an 
act  of  political  suicide. 

In  a  despatch,  dated  ■'  Bloemfontein,  31st  May, 
1872,"  President  Brand  informs  the  Governor  that 
"  the  Volksraad"  had  given  him  the  necessary  "  con- 
sent." And  he  thus  removed  the  cavilling  objection 
referred  to  above : 

"  Should  your  Excellency  accept  this  offer,  and  prefer  that  the 
Super-Arbiter  be  chosen  by  the  American,  German,  French,  or 
Russian  Ambassador  in  London,  instead  of  the  Dutch  Ambas- 
sador, our  Government  will  be  ready  and  willing  to  meet  your 
Excellency  on  that  point.  ...  As  soon  as  we  have  been  able  to 
come  to  an  agreement  on  these  two  points,  a  deed  of  submission 
can  be  drawn  up  for  your  Excellency's  and  my  signature." 

Naturally  enough,  with  regard  to  the  required 
"  formal  waiver,"  President  Brand  states: 

•  But  the -Government  of  the  Orange  Free  State  cannot  under  any 


SIR  h.  barkly's  impracticability.  375 

circumstances  consent  to  a  formal  waiver  by  them  of  all  claims  under  the 
Convention  of  the  23rd  February,  1854." 

And  he  then  points  out  the  serious  and  unfair  con- 
cession which  had  already  been  extorted  from  them 
by  the  aggressive  and  arrogant  conduct  of  the  British 
and  Colonial  Governments  : 

11  They  have  indeed  (as  will  appeal'  from  my  former  letters)  ex- 
pressed their  willingness  to  except  from  arbitration  the  point  as  to  the 
true  meaning  and  intent  of  Art.  2  of  the  Convention,  and  whether  the 
acceptance  of  Captain  Waterboer  and  his  people  as  British  subjects  was  or 
was  not  a  breach  of  the  Convention,  as  it  appeared  that  Her  Majesty's 
Government  declined  to  refer  that  point  to  arbitration,  but  they 
nevertheless  feel  bound  to  adhere  to  their  opinion  on  that  point  and 
their  protest  against  it." 

In  his  reply,  Sir  H.  Barkly  again  delays  any 
practical  issue  by  the  following  misinterpretation  and 
objections : 

"  1st.  I  understand  you  now  .  .  .  to  offer  to  leave  Lord  Kimberley 
to  choose,  from  among  the  American,  German,  French,  or  Russian 
Ambassadors,  the  authority  by  whom  such  Super- Arbiter  is  to  be 
named." — -(Sir  R.  Barkly  to  President  Brand,  21s*  June,  1872.) 

(This  is  incorrect :  President  Brand,  in  his  despatch 
of  31st  May,  quoted  above,  never  mentioned  "  Lord 
Kimberley "  in  such  connection.  He  submitted  the 
choice  to  Sir  H.  Barkly,  and  required  him  to  select  one 
or  other  of  the  ambassadors.) 

"2nd.  It  must  be  obvious  .  .  .  that  the  principles  of  equity  and 
justice  quite  as  conclusively  demand  the  exclusion  of  Dutch  as  of 
British  subjects  from  the  post  of  Super- Arbiter." — (Idem.) 

(This  was  a  childish  objection,  and  can  have  had  no 
other  object  than  delay.  And  although,  "  with  a 
view  of  promoting   an    amicable    settlement,"   Preai- 


376  INVIDIOUS    AND     OBSCURE    PROPOSITIONS. 

dent  Brand,  in  reply,  allowed  the  objection,  and 
agreed  to  its  terms,  he  was  clearly  right  in  stating 
that  his  Government  "  cannot  agree  that  in  a  ques- 
tion between  your  Excellency's  and  our  Governments, 
subjects  of  His  Majesty  the  King  of  the  Netherlands 
come  within  that  principle  " — "  that  questions  between 
two  Governments  should  not  be  referred  to  the  final 
award  of  a  subject  or  functionary  of  either.") 

"  3rd.  ...  I  shall  be  content  not  to  insist  on  a  '  formal  waiver 
of  claims  under  the  Convention  of  1854'  .  .  .  upon  the  insertion 
in  the  Deed  of  Submission  of  an  assurance  that,  whatever  the 
result  of  the  arbitration  may  be,  the  Government  of  the  Orange 
Free  State  engages  not  to  assert  at  any  future  period,  on  any  plea 
whatsoever,  a  claim  to  the  same  or  any  other  lands  within  the  area 
claimed  by  Captain  Waterboer." — (Idem.) 

The  unreasonable  nature  of  this  latter  objection  is 
concisely  illustrated  in  President  Brand's  reply,  dated 
July  10,  1872  : 

"  The  Deed  of  Submission  will,  of  course,  contain  the  usual 
clause  that  the  award  will  be  final,  and  that  our  respective  Govern- 
ments mutually  bind  themselves  to  abide  by,  perform,  and  obey 
the  award.  As  I  hope  that  we  are  now  likely  to  come  to  an  agree- 
ment ...  I  hope  that  your  Excellency  will  not  insist  upon  the 
insertion  ...  of  an  '  assurance,'  &c. ;  for  if  it  means  that  the 
award  is  to  be  final  and  binding,  then  provision  is  made  by  the  in- 
sertion of  the  usual  clause  abovementioned ;  and  if  it  means  any- 
thing else,  then  the  Government  of  the  Orange  Free  State  must 
first  ascertain  from  your  Excellency  the  intention,  force,  and  mean- 
ing of  that  clause,  or  decline  to  insert  such  a  clause  unless  a  similar 
assurance  be  inserted,  binding  your  Excellency's  Government  in  a 
like  manner,  and  to  the  same  effect." 

The  second  objection  raised  by  the  Governor  was 
removed  by  the  Free  State  Government  consenting 
to  exclude  Dutch  subjects  from  the  post  of  Super- 
Arbiter. 


SIR  H.  BARKLY  DELAYS  ARBITRATION.       377 

The  first  misrepresentation  was  rectified  by  the 
sentence,  "  I  shall  therefore  be  prepared  to  accept 
the  nomination  by  your  Excellency  of  any  one  of  the 
four  ambassadors  named." 

In  a  most  contradictory  despatch,  dated  July  30, 
1872,  Sir  H.  Barkly  replies,  and  commences  by  the 
declaration : 

"  Your  Honour's  letter  of  the  10th  instant  .  .  .  seems  to  remove 
the  only  differences  which  remained  between  us  in  regard  to  the 
constitution  of  the  tribunal  for  arbitrating." 

If  so,  why,  immediately  afterwards,  did  Sir  H. 
Barkly  raise  a  fresh  and  absurd  objection,  involving  a 
further  delay  of  at  least  another  month  or  two,  by  the 
following  proposition  ? 

"  And  perhaps  it  would  be  well  to  extend  the  list  open  to  selection 
by  including  the  Austrian  and  Italian  Ambassadors,  or  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  Helvetic  Confederation." 

Very  pertinent  were  the  reflections  indulged  in 
upon  this  prevaricating,  obstructive  production  by  the 
Friend  of  the  Free  State  (a  paper  of  impartiality  too 
well  known  throughout  South  Africa  to  need  my  testi- 
mony) in  its  issue  of  August   15th,  1872  : — 

"It  seems  somewhat  curious  that  his  Excellency,  after  .  .  .setting 
forth  that  the  President's  last  'seems  to  remove  the  only  differences,' 
etc.  .  .  .  should  in  the  following  and  concluding  clauses  apparently 
seek  to  raise  fresh  difficulties,  and  to  give  further  cause,  or  at  least, 
reasonable  excuse  for  delay  .  .  .  What  need,  for  instance,  can 
there  be  to  suggest,  in  addition  to  the  four  already  named,  the 
nomination  of  two  other  Ambassadors  .  .  .  and  the  (Swiss)  Presi- 
dent ?  .  .  .  Should  the  .  .  .  four  .  .  .  decline  to  act  .  .  .  is  it 
probable  that  either  of  the  other  three  will  ?  .  .  .  It  appears  to 
ordinary  .  .   .  individuals  like  ourselves  a  work  of  supererogation 


*'J78  llAK'l)    WORDS     FOR   SIR    H.    BARKLY. 

this  suggested  addition.   ...  If  the  four  see  reason  to  decline,  it  is 
only  natural  to  suppose  that  seven  would  do  the  same." 

The  following  observation  is  extremely  apropos,  and 
exactly  illustrates  the  hollowness,  hypocrisy,  and  the 
insincerity  of  Sir  H.  Barkly's  hypercritical  reasoning 
and  cavilling  about  the  Ambassadors : 

"  If  the  right  men  only  are  found  to  form  the  Commission  of  six, 
surely  no  Super-Arbiter  will  be  required.  The  questions  involved 
cannot  be  of  so  difficult  a  nature  that  six  men  at  all  competent, 
coming  honestly  to  the  work  with  the  least  desire  to  do  justice, 
would  not  come  to  a  right  decision  in  the  matter  without  any  further 
reference  whatever. ' ' 

But  a  far  more  positive  example  of  Sir  H.  Barkly's 
scandalous  tergiversation  is  to  be  found  in  his  speech 
proroguing  the  Cape  Parliament  on  the  31st  of  July, 
1872,  only  one  day  subsequent  to  the  date  of  the  despatch 
last  reviewed!     Therein  he  declares:  — 

"I  am  happy  to  state  that  the  constitution  of  the  tribunal  which 
is  to  arbitrate  as  to  these  disputes  has  been  settled  between  his 
Honour  President  Brand  and  myself." 

And   this    in  face    of    the    fact    that    only  on    the 
previous  day  he  had  written  making  fresh  plans  and  pro- 
po sals  for  the    "  constitution  of  the  tribunal,"  and  to  which 
President  Brand's  assent  (shortly  refused)  was  first  neces- 
sary before  that  subject  could  be  u  settled"  I 

This  deliberate  misstatement  is  still  further  established, 
proved  beyond  all  question,  in  President  Brand's  reply  to 
the  despatch  of  July  30th,  dated  16th  August,  1872  : 

"  After  stating  that  my  letter  of  the  10th  ultimo  seemed  to 
remove  the  only  differences  in  regard  to  the  constitution  of  the 
tribunal  .  .  .  your  Excellency  raises  some  further  difficulties  as  to  the 
Ambassador  who  is  to  choose  the  Super- Arbiter  !  .  .  . 


USE    OF    STRONG     LANGUAGE     JUSTIFIED.  379 

"  lam  still  willing  to  agree  to  any  of  the  four  Ambassadors  selected 
by  your  Excellency  .  .  . 

"  As  soon  as  I  receive  your  Excellency^ 's  assent  to  this  proposal,  lean 
have  the  Deed  of  Submission  drawn  up  .   .    . 

"To  the  proposition  that  power  should  be  reserved  .  .  .  that  H.B. 
Majesty's  Sec.  of  State  for  the  Colonies  shall  fill  up  the  place  of  the 
Ambassador  declining,  /  regret  that  I  cannot  give  the  assent  of  our 
Government,  for  that  would  be  tantamount  to  leaving  the  choice  of 
the  Super- Arbiter  to  one  of  the  contending  parties  .   .    . 

"■  .  .  .  As  we  unfortunately  have  not  yet  quite  arrived  at  an  agree- 
ment, on  the  most  important  point,  viz.,  the  selection  of  the  Super-* 
Arbiter,  it  would  .  .  .  delay  the  .  .  .  settlement  .  .  .  if  a  Deed  of 
Submission  were  drawn  up  before  we  have  agreed  upon  all  the  essential 
points?'' 

From  the  above  it  is  evident  Sir  H.  Barkly  wilfully 
deceived  the  Cape  Parliament,  and  that,  in  reality, 
instead  of  striving  to  arrange  the  difficulty  by  arbitra- 
tion, he  was  availing  himself  of  any  and  every  subter- 
fuge to  gain  time. 

Those  who  have  followed  this  Chapter  so  far  may 
perhaps  agree  that  the  Cape  Government  never  desired 
arbitration,  and  did  its  best  to  prevent  it.  Sir  H. 
Barkly  had  two  objects  to  gain  by  delay  :  1.  The 
revenue  being  then  illegally  derived  from  the  diamond 
fields  by  the  brigand  Junta  he  had  established  to  do 
exactly  what  he  had  objected  to,  in  his  despatch  dated 
June  22nd,  1871,  upon  the  part  of  the  Free  State,  viz., 
"  that  while  the  discussion  progresses  the  lands  in 
dispute  are  being  deprived  of  their  chief  value  by  having 
the  diamonds  extracted  therefrom  under  license  and 
authority  of  your  Honour's  Government " !  (So  he, 
being  the  strongest,  seized  those  lands,  did,  and  desired 
to  continue  doing,  exactly  that  which  he  declared  the 
Free  State  ought  not  to  do  !)  2.  In  order  to  screen 
himself  from  the  responsibility  for  his    filibustering 


380  PRESIDENT   BRAND'S  DEPLORED    ILLNESS. 

seizure  of  the  diamond  fields,  the  repudiation  of  the 
same  by  his  Parliament,  and  the  violation  of  all  the 
conditions  upon  which  we  have  seen  he  was  alone  ever 
authorized  to  annex,  it  was,  and  is,  absolutely  necessary 
for  his  own  interests  that  arbitration  should  be  delayed 
until  after  Her  Majesty's  Government  shall  see  fit  to 
relieve  him  of  all  responsibility  by  declaring  his  un- 
warranted seizure  a  Crown  Colony  ! 

The  Cape  Parliament  having  been  prorogued,  and  the 
political  aspect  of  the  diamond  fields  being  extremely 
dark  and  unfavourable — the  authority  of  Sir  H. 
Barkly's  Junta  being  utterly  disrespected,  whilst 
riot,  and  mob,  or  lynch  law,  seemed  to  have  become 
the  rule — the  Governor  set  off  on  a  second  visit  to  his 
dominions  in  the  month  of  August,  no  doubt  for 
the  express  purpose  of  propitiating  the  diggers,  and 
inducing  popular  consent,  or  at  least  quiescence,  to 
his  last  scheme — the  plan  to  convert  the  diamond 
fields  into  a  Crown  Colony. 

In  the  meanwhile  a  great  national  calamity  befel 
the  people  of  the  Orange  Free  State.  Their  able  and 
beloved  President,  just  at  this  most  critical  period  of 
their  history,  became  stricken  with  a  sudden  and 
serious  illness,  by  which  he  was  utterly  incapacitated 
from  duty — it  is  feared,  for  ever. 

Under  these  circumstances,  upon  his  arrival  at  the 
diamond  fields  in  September,  1872,  Sir.  H.  Barkly 
found  a  further  excuse  for  delaying  arbitration,  and 
the  "  constitution  of  the  tribunal"  which,  in  July, 
he  had  audaciously  informed  his  Parliament  was 
already  "settled."  Writing  from  "De  Beer's  'New 
Rush,'  "  on  the  "  11th  September,"  to  Mr.  Hohne,  the 
well-known    Government   Secretary   of    the    Orange 


SIR   H.  BARKLY    OBSTRUCTS   ARBITRATION.  381 

Free  State,  he  says,  "It  had  been  my  intention  pre- 
viously to  have  acknowledged  his  Honour's  letter"  (of 
16th  August).  "Under  present  circumstances  I,  of 
course,  abstain  from  making  such  a  communica- 
tion." 

But  Mr.  Holme,  then  Acting- President  of  the  Free 
State,  very  cleverly  debarred  Sir  H.  Barkly  from  this 
ready  plea  for  procrastination,  by  informing  the  latter, 
in  a  despatch  dated  "  16th  September,  1872,"  that  it 
would  "afford  (him)  much  pleasure  to  receive  the  com- 
munication which  your  Excellency  refers  to  as  having" 
been  your  intention  to  address  to  the  President.  .  .  " 

Sir  H.  Barkly  then  forwarded  his  reply,  dated  "De 
Beer's  '  New  Rush,'  23rd  September,  1872."  Need  it 
be  observed  that  he  again  raised  fresh  obstacles  to  the 
constitution  of  the  tribunal  he  before  declared  had 
been  "settled"  ?     He  states : — 

"I  trust  that  one  or  other  of  those  Ambassadors  will  select  a  .  .  . 
Super-Arbiter  .  .  .  but  if,  for  any  reason,  difficulty  should  occur,  it 
would  be  necessary  to  provide  otherwise  for  the  appointment  .  .  . 
and  I  would  therefore  again  propose  that  the  names  of  the  Austrian 
and  Italian  Ambassadors  and  the  President  of  the  Helvetic  Con- 
federation be  added  to  the  names  of  the  four  Ambassadors  ..." 

By  this  passage  Sir  H.  Barkly  not  only  proves  that 
instead  of  being  "  settled  "  the  "  constitution  of  the 
tribunal "  was  as  far  from  being  arranged  as  at  the 
first,  but  he  adds  to  and  alters  his  former  objection 
about  the  number  of  Ambassadors  !  In  his  letter  of 
30th  July,  1872,  already  quoted,  he  proposed 
"including  the  Austrian  and  Italian  Ambassadors, 
OR  the  President  of  the  Helvetic  Confederation." 
He  now  changes  the  proposition  into  "  and  the  Presi- 
dent," etc.,  thus  including  the  latter  as  necessary  to 


382   GOVERNOR  BARKLY'S  CONTINUED  SUBTERFUGES 

be  added,  instead  of  offering  him  in  place  of  one  of 
the  two  first !    With  cool  irony  he  remarks  : — 

"I  shall  be  prepared,  upon  receipt  of  the  draft  Deed  of  Sub- 
mission,   to  insert  the  names  of  the  three   Commissioners   to   be 

appointed  by  me I  hope  that  .  .  I  may  very  shortly  receive 

your  proposed  Deed  of  Submission  !  " 

The  ironical  nature  of  this  request  for  the  Deed 
of  Submission  is  palpable.  He  always  puts  off  his 
agreement  to  arbitration  until  he  receives  the  Deed, 
and  he  invariably  prevents  and  obstructs  the  drafting 
of  any  deed  by  continually  raising  new,  vexatious, 
and  absurd  propositions  and  objections  !  How,  under 
these  circumstances,  can  arbitration  or  any  practical 
result  ever  be  attained  ?  Furthermore,  in  this  reply  to 
Acting-President  Holme,  Sir  H.  Barkly  raises  another 
serious  difficulty — need  it  be  added,  upon  utterly 
false  premises  ?     He  states  :  — 

"  It  is  the  more  necessary  that  the  specific  territory  claimed  by 
your  Government,  and  the  specific  grounds  upon  which  it  is  claimed, 
should  be  fully  set  forth  ...  as  I  perceive  from  your  Honour's 
letter  of  the  16th  inst.,  that  your  Honour  would  wish  to  revert  to  Sir  II. 
Smith's  proclamation  of  1848,  and  to  the  Convention  of  1854,  as  to  the 
grounds  upon  which  your  Government  bases  its  claim,  instead  of 
those  stated  by  Mr.  Brand  in  his  letters  of  the  23rd  March  and  16th 
August  last,  and,  as  you  are  aware,  Her  Majesty's  Government  would 
not  consent  to  go  to  arbitration  as  to  the  said  Convention." 

In  the  first  place,  Mr,  Hohne  never  mentioned  either 
Sir  H.  SmiWs  Proclamation  or  the  Convention  !  Secondly, 
if  he  had  done  so,  in  the  sense  asserted,  he  would 
have  been  thoroughly  justified,  for  Her  Majesty's 
Government  have  never  refused  to  acknowledge  and 
submit  to  arbitration  the  treaty  rights  secured  to  the 
Free  State  by  the  Convention — nor  could  they,  indeed, 


THE    GOVERNOR'S   VEXATIOUS    DIPLOMACY   ARRAIGNED.     383 

ignore  the  existing  fact  that  to  this  day  the  Conven- 
tion is  the  treaty  between  the  two  countries.  It  was 
a  pretty  bold  attempt  to  gain  a  double  object.  Sir  EL 
Barkly  was  doubtless  anxious  to  overreach  his  new 
opponent  when  success  would  mean  the  exclusion  from 
arbitration  of  the  extremely  plain  and  damning  clauses 
of  the  Convention,  and,  at  all  events,  by  causing  fresh 
correspondence,  would  create  further  delay. 

In  the  month  of  October,  1872,  the  Free  State 
Volksraad  appointed  a  Commission  of  three  members 
— Messrs.  W.  W.  Collins,  F.  P.  Schnehage,  and  Gr.  J. 
du  Toit — to  administer  the  Government  during  the 
deplored  illness  of  President  Brand.  These  gentle- 
men, in  a  despatch  dated  "  October  24th,  1872," 
again  illustrate  the  unblushing  falseness  of  Sir  H. 
Barkly' s  declaration  to  the  Cape  Parliament,  in  July, 
that  the  constitution  of  the  Arbitration  Tribunal  had 
"been  settled"  and,  commenting  upon  the  difficulty  he 
had  raised  as  to  the  Convention,  &c.  (last  quoted), 
well  observed : — 

"It  is  not  without  considerable  surprise  that  the  Government 
now  discovers  in  your  Excellency's  letter  under  reply,  that  your 
Excellency  now  indicates  that  it  will  be  necessary  to  insert  in  the  Deed  of 
Submission  stipulations  which  were  never  contemplated,  and  which  the 
Government  of  this  State  never  did  and  never  could  agree  to. 

"  The  Commission  having  carefully  considered  the  whole  of  the 
correspondence  which  has  taken  place  .  .  .  and  more  especially 
the  President's  letter  mentioned  by  your  Excellency,  fails  to  discover 
that  the  Government  ever  waived  the  right  to  quote  the  Convention,  or  any 
other  instrument  which  could  be  cited  in  elucidation  of  the  true  intent  and 
meaning  of  the  Convention  ...  by  which  the  whole  of  the  territory 
situated  between  the  Orange  Eiver,  the  Vaal  Eiver,  and  the 
Drakensberg,  was  formally  ceded  and  made  over  ;  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, the  opposite  is  clearly  discernible  throughout  the  whole  of 
the  correspondence. 


384 


REVIEW    OF    SIR    H.    BARKLY'S    REPLY. 


"What  the  Government  of  the  Orange  Free  State  did  waive, 
respecting  the  Convention,  was  the  sub?nission  to  arbittationof  the 
construction  which  they  maintain  is  borne  by  Article  2." 

And  so,  as  long  as  Sir  H.  Barkly  chooses  to  quibble, 
prevaricate,  and  state  the  thing  that  is  not,  may  arbi- 
tration be  deferred,  and  correspondence  be  continued 
ad  infinitum.  So  utterly  mendacious,  so  teeming  with 
duplicity,  is  SirH.  Barkly' s  reply  to  the  above  despatch, 
that  I  feel  bound  to  publish  it  in  extenso  : — 

"  Government  House,  Cape  Town,  13th  November,  1872. 
"  To  their  Honours  the  Commissioners  administering  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  Orange  Free  State. 


Despatch. 

"  Gentlemen,  —  I  have  the 
honour  to  acknowledge  the  re- 
ceipt of  your  letter  of  the  24th 
October,  concerning  the  proposed 
arbitration  about  the  boundaries 
of  Griqualand  West,  from  which 
I  was  glad  to  perceive  that  the 
late  Acting-President,  Mr.  Hohne, 
when  he  fixed  my  particular 
attention  upon  the  Protest  of  the 
Yolksraad,  dated  4th  December, 
1871,  must  be  (a)  understood 
not  as  having  intended  to  refer 
to  what  is  called  therein  a  breach 
of  Article  2  of  the  Convention  of 
1854,  but  (b)  simply  to  that  part 
of  said  Protest  which  maintains 
that  the  Orange  Free  State,  esta- 
blished by  that  Convention,  in- 
cludes the  whole  territory  which 
is  situated  between  the  Orange 
Eiver,  the  Yaal  River,  and  the 
Drakensberg. 

"  2.  Although  this  assertion 
differs  considerably  (c),  as  I  have 


Remarks. 

(a)  Sir  H.  Barkly  refers  to  the 
paragraph  I  last  quoted  from  the 
Commissioners'  despatch  ;  but  not 
a  word  therein  justifies  the 
strange  double  entendre  he  chooses 
to  put  upon  Mr.  Hohne's  refer- 
ence to  the  whole  of  the  Protest  of 
the  Yolksraad,  not  one  paragraph. 
How  did  Sir  H.  Barkly  guess 
that  Mr.  Hohne  referred  "  to 
what  is  called  therein  a  breach  of 
Article  2  of  the  Convention," 
when  he  never  mentioned  it? 

(b)  The  ready  way  in  which 
his  fancy  shifts  a  reference 
which  was  never  made,  by  the 
equally  unfounded  assertion  that 
the  Commissioners  explain  it  as 
stated  in  the  opposite  para- 
graph, is  not  quite  so  simple  as 
implied. 

(c)  Supposing  such  an  "  asser- 
tion "  had  been  made,  this 
statement  is  wholly  untrue.  I 
have      repeatedly     quoted     the 


GOVERNOR   BARKLY7S   CHICANERY. 


385 


pointed  out  before,  from  that 
whereon  President  Brand  rested 
his  willingness  to  proceed  to  ar- 
bitration, viz. —  '  the  rights  and 
claims  of  the  Free  State  to  the 
Campbell  grounds  on  the  north  of 
the  Yaal  Eiver,  and  the  territory 
within  the  Vetberg  line  to  the 
south  of  that  Eiver,'  obtained  as 
asserted,  with  the  exception  of 
three  farms,  by  sale  by  the  heirs 
of  Cornelius  Kok,  of  Campbell 
(d),  I  am  perfectly  prepared  to 
accept  the  same  as  the  ground 
upon  which  the  Government  of 
your  State  lays  claim  to  a  part 
of  the  territory  proclaimed  by  me 
as  Griqualand  West ;  and  to  let 
Captain  Waterboer's  case,  on  the 
other  side,  rest  on  the  protest  that 
his  boundaries,  long  before  the 
issue  of  the  Proclamation  of  Sir 
H.  Smith,  have  been  fixed  by  (e) 
treaties,  which  have  been  ac- 
knowledged by  the  British  Go- 
vernment, and  that  consequently 
(?)  he  has  neither  by  conquest, 
nor  by  sale  or  transfer,  lost  any 
part  of  the  ground  thus  fixed. 

"3.  These  respective  assertions 
can  easily  be  mentioned  in  suit- 
able legal  words  in  a  deed  of 
submission,  which  could  be 
drawn,  and  the  arbitrators  on 
that  basis  commence  their  work 
within  a  month. 

"4.  I  am  equally  surprised 
and  regret  to  see  from  a  further 
part  of  your  letter,   that    'the 


grounds  on  which  President  Brand 
has  always  based  the  rights  of  the 
Free  State  in  his  despatches  to  Sir 
H.  Barkly,  so  that  the  latter  can- 
not in  ignorance  have  presumed 
to  state  that  the  only  claim  was 
by  virtue  of  "  sale  by  the  heirs 
of  Cornelius  Kok  "  !  President 
Brand  has  always  maintained  the 
rights  of  the  Free  State  to  the  ter- 
ritory in  question  by  virtue  of  Sir 
H.  Smith's  Proclamation  of  1848; 
the  Convention  of  1854;  the  pur- 
chases from  Cornelius  and  Adam 
Kok,  David  Dantzer,  Sfc. 

(d)  The  ruse  by  which  Sir  H. 
Barkly  seeks  to  entangle  the 
Commissioners  in  a  net  of  his 
invention,  by  so  "  simply  "  at- 
tempting to  bind  them  to  an 
untenable  position  [par.  (£)],  is 
but  a  clumsy  piece  of  chicanery, 
and  would  discredit  the  veriest 
tyro  in  diplomatic  art. 

As  the  Free  State  never  did 
include  the  "  whole  territory 
between  the  Orange  Eiver,  the 
Yaal  Eiver,  and  the  Drakens- 
berg,"  although  such  constituted 
the  Sovereignty,  and  at  its  aban- 
donment, was,  on  paper,  transfer- 
red to  the  new  Free  State  (See 
pp.  51 — 56,  Chap.  III.),  an  affir- 
mative assertion  would  be  utterly 
absurd.  For  instance,  the  Free 
State  never  included  Basuto-land. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  this 
is  only  another  dodge  of  Sir  H. 
Barkly's  to  prevent  arbitration. 

(e)  That  the  boundaries  Sir  3. 
Barkly  has  seized  for   Waterboer 

2  c 


386 


THE  GOVERNOR'S  ARROGANCE. 


Commissioners  cannot  agree 
(with  me)  as  to  the  desirability 
of  inserting  in  the  Deed  of 
Submission  the  grounds  upon 
which  the  Government  of  the 
Orange  Free  State  base  their 
right  and  title  to  the  tract  of 
country  in  question.'  (/)  Months 
ago  such  an  exposition  of  claims 
has  in  my  correspondence  with 
President  Brand  been  accepted 
as  a  matter  sine  qua  non;  nor 
has  his  Honour,  although  desi- 
rous that  the  difference  con- 
cerning the  manner  of  election 
of  arbitrators  and  umpire  should 
first  be  settled,  ever  declined 
to  consent  to  such  a  reasonable 
proposal. 

"5.  {g)  If,  in  your  capacity  of 
Commissioners  appointed  by  the 
Volksraad  to  administer  the 
Government  during  his  Honour's 
illness,  you  persist  in  refusing 
concurrence,  I  shall,  I  am  sorry 
to  say,  have  no  alternative  but 
to  suspend  negotiation  for  the 
present,  as  I  must  decline  to 
sign  any  Deed  of  Submission 
which  leaves  it  optional  to  the 
Government  of  the  Orange  Free 
State  to  shift  the  grounds  of  its 
claim  from  time  to  time,  and 
take  up  a  new  position  when- 
ever it  may  be  deemed  advan- 
tageous to  its  interest  to  do  so. 
— I  have  the  honour  to  be,  &c, 
"  Henry  Barkly, 

"Governor  and  High  Com- 
missioner." 


were  ever  mentioned  in  treaties, 
or  were  ever  acknowledged  by 
the  British  Government  previous 
to  that  seizure,  is  utterly  false.  I 
have  quoted  all  the  so-called 
treaties  in  Chapters  VIII.  and 
IX.,  so  my  readers  can  judge  for 
themselves. 

(/)  This  statement  I  must 
also  denounce  as  wholly  untrue. 
I  have  repeatedly  and  carefully 
perused  every  despatch  President 
Brand  has  written  to  Sir  H. 
Barkly,  and  declare  that  no  such 
stipulation  has  ever  "  been  ac- 
cepted (by  him)  as  a  matter  sine 
qua  non."  Sir  H.  Barkly  says 
President  Brand  never  "  de- 
clined to  consent,"  but  I  defy 
him  to  state  where  and  when 
the  latter  ever  assented  to  "  such 
a  reasonable  proposal  "  ! 

(g)  Can  my  readers  credit 
the  fact  that  it  is  one  of  the  parties 
to  the  case  to  be  arbitrated  who 
dares  to  use  this  language  ?  Is 
it  usual  for  one  of  the  two 
parties  to  such  a  case  to  point 
out  and  arrange  for  the  other 
the  grounds  and  evidence  upon 
which  alone  the  matter  shall  be 
submitted  to  arbitrators?  Has 
the  Tichborne  Claimant  been 
allowed  to  dictate  the  terms  of 
his  opponents'  defence  ?  Did 
England  presume  to  dictate  the 
only  terms  and  points  of  evi- 
dence the  United  States  should 
use  in  the  Alabama  arbitration  ? 
What  right  has  Sir  H.  Barkly 
to  dictate  to  the  Free  State 
what  it  may  and  may  not  plead  ? 


THE    GOVERNOR'S    GROSS    INJUSTICE.  387 

In  continuation  of  my  remarks  upon  the  last  para- 
graph of  the  above  despatch,  I  would  ask,  if  the  Free 
State  were  to  submit  to  such  arrogant,  unusual,  ex 
parte  interference  and  dictation  by  its  worst  oppo- 
nent, would  the  result  be  arbitration  or  a  decision 
in  his  own  favour  by  one  of  the  interested  parties  ? 
It  seems  difficult  to  realize  the  fact  that  a  high  public 
functionary  can  confidently  pursue  a  course  of  such 
intolerable  injustice.  For  my  part,  I  venture  to 
affirm  that  no  honest  man  would  so  persistently  strive 
to  prejudice  and  prevent  the  fair  setting  forth  and 
hearing  of  an  adversary's  case.  The  matter  pending 
is  between  Sir  H.  Barkly  and  the  Free  State.  He 
may  state  his  own  case  how  he  likes  :  what  right  has 
he  to  also  assume  the  position  of  censor  to  that  of  his 
opponent  ?  As  he  does  so,  we  can  only  believe  that  he 
desires  to  be  consistent,  to  usurp  the  functions  of  the 
arbitrators,  as  he  has  already  usurped  the  government 
and  possession  of  the  territory,  the  right  to  which,  in 
consequence  of  that  act,  has  to  be   arbitrated. 

The  reply  of  the  Commissioners  to  the  despatch 
under  review  is  so  admirable,  their  arguments  are  so 
terse,  logical,  and  statesmanlike,  that  I  cannot  refrain 
from  quoting  it  verbatim,  except  only  such  part  as 
relates  to  the  dispute  as  to  the  Super- Arbiter,  which 
I  have  already  fully  referred  to  at  pp.  380 — 382. 

"  Bloemfontein,  4th  Dec.  1872. 
"  His  Excellency  Sir  Henry  Barkly,  K.O.B.,  Governor  and  High 
Commissioner,  Capetown. 
"  Sir, — We  have  the  honour  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your 

Excellency's  letter  of  the  30th  ultimo, 
(a*)  "  Mr.    Hohne,    the   late    Acting- President,     in     referring 

*  These  letters  denote  the  respective  passages  in  reply  to  such  parts 
of  Sir  H.  Barkly's  despatch  as  have  similar  marks  appended 

2c2 


388  REPLY   OF   THE   COMMISSIONERS. 

your  Excelloncy,  in  his  letter  of  the  16th  September  last,  to 
the  correspondence  which  has  taken  place  between  your  Excellency 
and  His  Honour  the  President,  and  directing  your  Excellency's 
attention  to  the  Protest  of  the  Volksraad  of  the  4th  December,  1871, 
(b),  had  no  intention  of  thereby  conveying  an  impression  that  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  Orange  Free  State  intended  to  indicate  the  basis  on  which  their 
right  and  title  is  founded  to  the  Campbell  lands,  to  the  North  of  the  Vaal 
River,  or  the  lands  to  the  South  of  that  River,  within  the  Vetberg  line, 
and  the  three  British  land  certificate  farms ;  (c)  and  we  are  surprised  to 
find  that  your  Excellency  is  labouring  under  the  erroneous  impression  that 
the  Government  of  the  Orange  Free  State  contend  thai  the  lands  in  ques- 
tion were  acquired  as  alleged,  with  exception  of  three  farms,  (d)  by 
purchase  from  the  heirs  of  Cornelius  Koh  of  Campbell,  while  your  Excel- 
lency must  be  aware  of  the  fact,  that  Her  Britannic  Majesty' 's  Government, 
while  this  country  was  under  its  sovereignty,  apportioned  the  greater  part  of 
the  land  situated  to  the  South  of  the  Vaal  River  to  natives  and  Europeans, 
to  the  latter  by  granting  titles  to  farms  in  upwards  of  thirty  instances,  and 
which  titles  had  to  be,  and  have  been,  guaranteed  by  this  Government,  in 
terms  of  the  Convention  of  the  23rd  February,  1854  ;  so  that,  although 
your  Excellency  expresses  your  perfect  readiness  to  accept  the  con- 
tention as  stated  by  your  Excellency,  it  is  obvious  that  it  could  not 
be  adopted  by  this  Government. 

(/*.)  "  We  regret  to  find  that  your  Excellency  does  not  concur  with 
that  portion  of  our  letter  of  the  24th  October,  in  which  we  stated  that 
we  did  not  think  it  desirable  that  an  elaborate  statement  of  the 
grounds  upon  which  the  case  of  the  Orange  Free  State  is  based  should 
be  embodied  in  the  Deed  of  Submission,  as  the  manner  of  arbitrating 
the  same  may  thereby  be  rendered  more  complicated,  thinking,  as 
we  still  do,  that  a  clear  and  concise  statement  of  the  points  at  issue  between 
our  respective  Governments,  is  all  that  can  be  deemed  necessary,  and  in 
that  view  we  are  strengthened  on  reference  to  the  very  lengthy  cor- 
respondence which  has  for  months  past  taken  place  on  this  vexed 
question,  from  which  we  have  not  been  able  to  gather  that  His  Honour 
President  Brand  ever  adopted  the  coarse  proposed  by  your  Excellency,  and 
still  less  that  it  has  been  laid  down  as  a  sine  qua  non.  The  reasons 
upon  which  our  objection  to  the  proposed  course  is  founded  are,  that 
it  is  neither  usual  nor  expedient. 

"  As  the  question  to  be  decided  is  .sinij>hj  one  of  right,  tve  consider  that 
everything  should  be  avoid nl  hy  which  either  of  the  parties  would  be  debarred 
from  obtaining  that  justice  to  which  it  is  entitled,  and  it  icould  be  a  matter 
of  serious  regret,  should  either  of  the  parties  after  the  Deed  of  Submission 


SUMMARY   OF   FREE   STATE   TITLES.  389 

is  signed,  without  intending  to  '  shift '  the  grounds  upon  which  its  claims 
are  based,  find  itself  restricted  and  fettered  by  stipulations  clothed  in  legal 
phraseology,  giving  rise  to  complications  and  misunderstandings  which 
would  prevent  them  bringing  forward  all  their  proofs,  make  it  difficult  for 
the  Commission  of  Arbitration  to  arrive  at  an  award,  and  defeat  the  ends 
of  justice. 

(d)  "  The  Commissioners  must  again  repeat  what  has  before  been 
so  forcibly  urged  by  this  Government,  that  the  title  of  the  Orange 
Free  State  and  its  right  of  ownership  to  the  Campbell  lands,  lying 
to  the  North  of  the  Vaal  River,  and  the  lands  to  the  South  of  that 
River,  within  the  Vetberg  line,  and  the  three  British  land  certificate 
farms  through  which  that  line  passes,  and  the  many  other  farms 
held  under  British  titles  are  founded  upon,  and  have  been  acquired  by, 
His  Excellency  Sir  Harry  Smith'' s  Proclamation  0/1848,  the  Convention 
of  Sir  G.  Clerk,  as  Her  Majesty'' s  Special  Commissioner,  of  the  23rd 
February,  1854,  the  settlement  of  lines*  between  the  late  Captain  Cor- 
nelis  Kok  of  Campbell,  and  Captain  N.  Waterboer  by  Captain  Adam  Kok, 
on  the  10th  October,  1855,  and  the  subsequent  acquisition  by  this  State, 
in  1861,  by  purchase  from  Captain  Adam  Kok,  of  Philippolis,  as  heir  to 
or  successor  of  Captain  Cornelis  If  ok,  of  the  latter' s  entire  ownership  of 
that  portion  of  territory  formerly  belonging  to  him,  and  they  do  not  feel 
at  liberty  to  waive  any  of  these  rights  of  ownership  ;  His  Honour 
President  Brand  having  merely  consented  to  exclude  from  the  pro- 
posed arbitration  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  Article  2  of  the 
Convention  of  1854,  as  to  whether  the  acceptance  of  Captain  Water- 
boer and  his  followers  as  British  subjects  was  not  a  breach  of  the 
said  Convention,  and  this  point  was  only  conceded  when  this  Govern- 
ment ascertained  the  very  strong  objection  entertained  by  Her 
Majesty's  Government  to  submit  that  question  to  arbitration,  but 
this  Government  nevertheless  feels  bound  to  adhere  to  their  opinion 
on  that  point  as  well  as  to  the  Protest  against  it,  as  set  forth  in  the 
latter  portion  of  clause  4  of  His  Honour  President  Brand's  letter  to 
your  Excellency  of  the  30th  May  last.  And  as  the  Government  of  the 
Orange  Free  State  withdrew  their  authority  from  the  territory  legiti- 
mately acquired  as  above  stated,  upon  forcible  possession  being  taken  of  it 
under  your  Excellency' 's  Proclamation  of  the  27th  October,  1871,  and  the 
subsequent  acts  of  violence  committed  notwithstanding  its  solemn  protest,  in 
which  we  are  still  bound  to  persist,  our  Government,  as  your  Excel- 

*  The  Yetberg  line. 


390        waterboer' s   "  TREATIES  "  DISPOSED   of. 

lency  will  readily  understand,  although  still  quite  as  anxious  as  it 
has  ever  been,  to  have  this  unfortunate  contention  finally  and 
amicably  settled  by  an  equitable  arbitration  without  further  delay, 
cannot  in  fairness  be  expected  to  waive  any  rights  acquired  by  the  above- 
mentioned  formal  document,  and  it  fails  to  see  hoiv  they  can  be  placed  in 
the  anomalous  position  of  a  mere  *  claimant '  in  the  present  controversy, 
seeing  that  the  Government  of  the  Orange  Free  State  up  to  the  period  at 
which  it  withdrew  its  authority  enjoyed  undisturbed  possession  and  exer- 
cised territorial  jurisdiction  and  authority  over  all  country  situated  to  the 
South  of  the  Vaal  River,  within  the  Vetberg  line,  and  the  three  British 
land  certificate  farms,  and  the  many  other  farms  held  under  British  titles, 
lying  tvithin  the  tract  of  country  proclaimed  British  territory  by  your 
Excellency  under  the  pretext  that  it  belonged  to  Captain  N. 
Waterboer. 

(e)  "  The  treaties  between  the  late  Captain  Andries  Waterboer  and  the 
British  Government,  our  Government  maintains,  ceased  to  be  of  force  at 
his  death,  and  did  not  pass  over  or  extend  to  his  son,  Captain  N.  Water- 
boer. Any  treaties  in  existence  before  the  year  1855  were  modified,  if 
not  altogether  invalidated,  by  the  making  of  the  Vetberg  line  on  the  10th 
October,  1855,  vide  Sis  Honour  President  Brand's  letter  to  your  Excel- 
lency of  the  10th  October,  1870.  For  these  and  other  cogent  reasons, 
stated  in  previous  letters,  it  seems  obvious,  although  much  to  be 
deplored,  that  your  Excellency  and  our  Government  have  not  up  to 
the  present  been  able  to  arrive  at  an  entire  agreement  as  to  the  ex- 
act wording  of  the  Deed  of  Submission,  although  we  until  recently,  i.e., 
before  the  receipt  of  your  Excellency's  letter  under  reply,  entertained  the 
hope,  and  were  under  the  impression,  that  the  only  matter  remaining  for  final 
settlement  preparatory  to  the  drawing  up  of  the  Deed  of  Submission 
between  your  Excellency  and  His  Honour  the  President,  was  merely  the 
mode  of  a  definite  arrangement  of  the  question  touching  appointment  of 
the  Super- Arbiter  to  whom  the  case  is  to  be  referred  in  the  event  of 
the  Court  of  Arbitrators  not  agreeing  in  their  award. 

"  With  regard  to  the  selection  of  the  Super- Arbiter  .  .  .  the 
Commissioners  .  .  .  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  sufficient 
provision  is  made  for  the  selection  of  a  suitable  Super- Arbiter 
by  leaving  the  selection  to  one  or  other  of  the  four  ambassa- 
dors, named  by  his  Honour  President  Brand  in  his  letter  of  the 
16th  August  last,  the  more  so  as  there  appears  to  be  no  well- 
founded  reason  for  believing  that  any  of  the  ambassadors 
nuineU  would  refuse  to  select  a  Super-Arbiter  at  the  special  re- 
q  nest  of  both  Governments. 


INTERMINABLE    CORRESPONDENCE.  391 

"Your  Excellency  need  probably  not  be  reminded  that  the 
Government  has  in  diverse  ways  conceded  many  points  with  a 
view  of  facilitating  and  expediting  the  proposed  reference  to 
arbitration,  and  we  make  bold  to  express  the  hope  that  your 
Excellency  may  meet  us  in  the  same  conciliatory  spirit. 

11  We  have  not  yet  been  favoured  by  your  Excellency  with  a 
reply  to  Clause  9  of  our  letter  to  your  Excellency  of  24th  October 
ultimo,  desiring  an  elucidation  of  those  clauses  of  your  Excellency's 
letters  of  the  21st  June,  30th  July,  and  23rd  September,  of  '  an 
assurance  that  whatever  the  result  of  the  arbitration  maybe,  the 
G-overnment  of  the  Orange  Free  State  engages  not  to  assert  at  any 
future  period,  on  any  plea  whatever,  a  claim  to  the  same,  or  any 
other  land  within  the  area  claimed  by  Captain  Waterboer.' 

(g.)  "  We  can  hardly  bring  ourselves  to  suppose  that  your  Excellency 
will  now,  at  the  eleventh  hour,  take  advantage  of  the  altered  circumstances 
consequent  upon  the  withdrawal  of  our  authority  to  avoid  a  hostile  collision, 
adopt  so  arbitrary  a  course  as  to  suspend  further  negotiations  for  the 
present  in  a  matter  in  which  so  much  unnecessary  delay  has  already 
taken  place,  and  upon  the  amicable  solution  of  which  so  very  much 
depends. 

"We  have  the  honour  to  be,  &c.,. 

"  W.  W.  Collins,  Chairman^ 
"G.  J.  duToit, 

"  F.  P.  SCHNEHAGE." 

j 

Up  to  the  time  of  going  to  press  (February,  1873) 
the  above  despatch  is  the  last  instalment  to  the 
arbitration  correspondence  which  I  have  received  from 
South  Africa,  or  which  has  arrived  in  England.  It  is 
a  worthy  and  a  memorable  document  with  which  to 
conclude  this  Chapter.  As  for  the  future  correspon- 
dence, it  may  yet  continue  for  months  or  years  ;  but  I 
venture  to  believe  that  amply  sufficient  has  been  herein 
quoted  to  show  upon  which  side  is  right,  truth,  and 
honesty  of  purpose.  For  my  part  I  am  quite  satisfied 
that  Sir  H.  Barkly  will  do  all  in  his  power  to  delay 
and  prevent  the  proposed  arbitration  until  after  Earl 
Kimberley  and  his  colleagues  have  been  simple  enough 


392  IMPROBABILITY   OF   ARBITRATION. 

to  relieve  him  from  his  very  serious  responsibility  and 
dilemma,  by  taking  over  from  him  and  declaring  the 
diamond  fields  a  separate  and  independent  British 
Crown  Colony.  Indeed,  I  would  even  go  so  far  as  to 
express  my  conviction  that  arbitration  will  never  come 
off  so  long  as  either  Mr.  Richard  Southey  or  Sir 
Henry  Barkly  are  permitted  to  have  a  voice  in  the 
matter. 

Since  the  above  remarks  appeared  in  a  hurried  first  edition  of  this 
work,  they  have  received  ample  confirmation  by  despatches  of  which 
copies  have  this  day  (20th  of  February,  1873)  reached  me.  Sir  H.  Barkly 
has  declined  to  continue  the  correspondence  and  negotiations  on  the  sub- 
ject of  arbitration !  Has  refused  a  reply  to  the  able  despatch  of  the 
Commissioners  last  quoted! 

Of  course,  he  has  a  pretext  for  this  tyrannical,  arbitrary,  cowardly 
policy.  We  have  seen  that  he  is  never  at  a  loss  for  some  mean  subter- 
fuge. The  Free  State  authorities  having  chanced  to  seize  some 
smugglers  of  guns  and  ammunition  within  their  territory,  he  has  the 
hardihood  to  state,  in  a  despatch  dated  "  January  1,  1873  "  : 

"  In  the  present  position  of  our  relations,  arising  out  of  the  aggressive  acts  recently 
committed  by  the  Free  State  authorities,  I  feel  it  to  be  out  of  the  question  to  enter 
upon  the  consideration  of  your  Honour's  letter  of  the  4th  ultimo  "  ! 

This  shameful  conduct  the  Governor  tries  to  justify  upon  the  pre- 
tence that  the  smugglers  and  contraband  goods  were  seized  within 
the  boundary  line  according  to  Mr.  Orpen's  chart!  that  chart,  up  to 
the  period  in  question,  never  having  been  officially  communicated  to 
the  Government  of  the  Free  State ;  their  assent  thereto  never  having 
been  sought;  and  the  chart  itself  (as  shown  in  the  next  chapter)  being 
entirely  incorrect. 

Although  the  Free  State  Government  utterly  repudiates  any  line 
whatever,  it  has,  to  preserve  peace,  scrupulously  respected  a  line 
from  Ramah  via  David's  Graf  to  Platberg,  as  laid  down  in  diagram 
F,  since  the  seizure  of  its  143  farms  by  Sir  H.  Barkly;  but  it  could 
not  respect  Orpen's  fictitious  line,  which  it  had  never  seen  /  We  have 
all  heard  of  the  fable  of  the  wolf  and  the  lamb  ! 


l)/a//ir/r/(prxH-l'<r('srce^6  6y  Scr*/f.I?u*ikZyj6y  Trie/,  <Jo3 , £  ol&  Jv '///>/- \s,  Gove 
///■  w/  LotrvcC  Sztrveyor. 

•n-Stutu  tr- 

tctSbCons) 


DIAGRAM  P. 

To  fbbcesC?LafjferU; 


in  or-cfer*  60  esn.Srvioes  tA</Z>LCcrnx>rt4ZsJ:i4zZc£&  by  6fc&  lisi^  ctooisn^o/  frr* 


W&Gfctrts  f/nz/lorrix^B  ef&rTjftzJXs  £or.s~io{-  We4t>. 


To  face  Pagt  393  C/u*.  XVL 


SIR.  h.  barkly's  line.  393 


CHAPTER    XVI. 

The  Line  from  Kamah,  via  David's  Graf,  to  Plat- 
berg,    AND      HOW      IT     HAS     BEEN     TAMPERED     WITH, 
ALTERED,     AND     PERVERTED,    BY    SlR    H.    BaRKLY    AND 

his   Colleagues,  in  order  to  obtain  possession  of 

THE   FAMOUS     "  Dry     DIGGINGS."        UNPOPULARITY   OF 

Sir  H.  Barkly's  Government  at  the  Diamond 
Fields. 

The  "Dry  Diggings"  seized  by  Sir  H.  Barkly's  Agents 
before  they  knew  those  places  were  within  the  boundary 
of  the  Territory  he  had  proclaimed. — Mr.  De  Yilliers' 
Survey  of  the  Line  for  the  Free  State. — Its  Accuracy. — 
A  Survey  (Mr.  Gilfillan's)  approved  by  Sir  H.  Barkly, 
Proved  to  be  Inaccurate. — Gross  Discrepancies  between  Sir 
H.  Barkly's  Statements,  Mr.  Gilfillan's  Survey,  and  the 
Survey  by  Mr.  Francis  Orpen— also  made  for  the  Cape  Govern- 
ment.— Proof  that  Mr.   De  Yilliers'  Survey  is  correct,  and 

THAT     (EVEN  ADMITTING   THE   ABOVE   LINE)    THE    "Dry    DIGGINGS" 

belong  to  the  Free  State. — Sir  H.  Barkly's  False  Eeports 
as  to  the  Success  and  Popularity  of  his  Government  at  the 
Diamond  Fields — Proof  to  the  contrary,  showing  that  Lynch- 
law,  elot,  and  entire  dissatisfaction  exists. — corrupt 
Practices  prevailing  amongst  Sir  H.  Barkly's  Officials. — 
Conclusion. 

I  have  already  pointed  out  the  fact  that  Sir  H. 
Barkly  and  his  late  colleagues  can  have  had  but  one 
object  in  proclaiming  the  line  "  from  Ramah,  via 
David's  Graf  to  Platberg  "  and  (in  Waterboer's  name) 
seizing  upon  Free  State  territory  up  to  that  boundary; 


394  ROBBERY    OF    THE    "DRY    DIGGINGS." 

and  that  that  object  was  the  express  intention  and 
desire  to  obtain  the  richest  of  all  the  diamond  fields, 
the  famous  different  diggings  forming  a  cluster  known 
as  the  "  dry  diggings."  This  intention  is  proved  by 
the  Governor's  emissaries  not  only  taking  possession 
of  those  places  as  being  within  the  said  line,  but  by  their 
issue  of  sundry  maps  and  plans,  also  placing  Du  Toit's 
Pan,  Bultfontein,  and  Alexandersfontein,  De  Beer's  Old 
and  New  Rushes,  some  distance  inside  the  boundary. 

Now,  by  the  annexed  diagram  F,  it  will  be  seen  that 
all  those  places  are  really  outside,  to  the  east  of  the  line 
claimed  and  taken  possession  of  vi  et  armis  "from 
Eamah,  via  David's  Graf  to  Platberg ;  "  and,  conse- 
quently, still  within  Free  State  territory  !  So  that, 
even  supposing  this  line  to  be  rightly  Waterboer's,  and 
rightly  seized  for  him  by  Sir  H.  Barkly  and  his  co- 
adjutors, by  their  own  statements  and  claims  those 
diggings  have  been  wrongfully  taken  into  their  pos- 
session !  They  claim  the  land  up  to  their  fabricated 
line,  but  admit  the  right  of  the  Free  State  to  every- 
thing on  the  other,  or  eastern  side,  where  its  posses- 
sion and  jurisdiction  has  not  been  molested !  Therefore, 
the  question  is,  on  which  side  of  the  line  are  the  "  dry 
diggings  "  actually  situated  ?  I  submit  that  Mr,  De 
Villiers'  survey  conclusively  proves  those  places  to  be 
one  and  all  on  the  Free  State,  or  eastern  side  of  the 
line. 

1.  This  survey  was  not  made  subsequent,  but  some 
time  previous,  to  the  Proclamation  of  October  27th, 
1871,  and  the  invention  and  seizure  of  that  line,  so 
that  it  cannot  be  liable  to  any  suspicion  of  "  cooking," 
or  fraudulent  intent  to  place  those  "  diggings"  within 
Free  State  territory. 


VALUE   OF    MR.    DE   VILLIERS'    SURVEY.  395 

2.  Being  a  trigonometrical  survey,  from  prominent 
points,  one  within  sight  of  the  other,  for  the  express 
purpose  of  measuring  and  determining  the  boundaries 
and  extent  of  the  farms  spread  over  the  neighbour- 
hood, its  perfect  accuracy,  I  submit,  is  unquestionable ; 
and  has  been  fully  agreed  to  not  only  by  the  owners 
of  estates  concerned,  but  by  the  Government  of  the 
country,  previous  to  the  seizure  of  the  "  dry  diggings," 
by  Messrs.  Los  Filibusteros. 

3.  Subsequent  to  such  seizure,  Mr.  De  Villiers  has 
carefully  gone  over  his  actual  measurement  of  the 
ground,  and  fixed  the  position  of  the  "  dry  diggings  n 
at  the  places  marked  on  his  survey. 

4.  A  plan  like  this,  by  triangulation,  cannot  be  in- 
correct, for  any  person  of  ordinary  education,  who  chose 
to  take  the  trouble,  could  certainly  and  easily  detect  even 
a  trifling  inaccuracy,  much  less  the  placing  of  prominent 
objects  some  miles  out  of  position  ;  and,  whereas  the 
robbers  of  the  diamond  fields  place  the  "  dry  diggings  " 
variously,  by  their  different  charts,  four  and  eight 
miles  to  the  West  of,  or  within  a  straight  line  from 
David's  Graf  to  Platberg,  Mr.  De  Villiers  places  them, 
at  their  nearest  approach,  three  and  a-half  miles  to  the 
East,  or  outside  of  that  line,  and  within  Free  State 
territory. 

It  is  an  incontrovertible  fact  that  Sir  H.  Barkly's 
agents  seized  and  took  possession  of  the  "  dry  dig- 
gings ''  (their  main  object)  before  they  knew  whether  those 
places  were  within  or  outside  the  line  they  claimed,  and 
before  Sir  II  Barldy  had  time  to  officially  communicate  the 
result  of  a  survey  he  had  ordered  to  be  made  !  This  illus- 
trates the  animus  furandi  with  which  they  proceeded. 

On  the  4:th  November,    1871,  a  force  of  armed  and 


396  MR.  gilfillan's  survey. 

mounted  Cape  police  invaded  Free  State  territory  and 
took  possession  of  Du  Toit's  Pan  and  De  Beer's  u  dry 
diggings  '' ;  but  in  a  despatch  to  Earl  Kimberley,  Sir 
H.  Barkly,  under  date  "  November  2,"  states: — 

"I  think  it  right  to  enclose  a  tracing  from  a  survey  made  by  Mr. 
George  Gilfillan,  whom  I  employed  to  ascertain  the  exact  position 
of  the  boundary  line  claimed  by  that  Chief"  ( Waterboer),  "  and 
which  has  been  only  this  day  received  from  the  Special  Magistrate  " 
(Mr.  Campbell,  at  Klip-Drift). 

Now,  as  Cape  Town  is  about  570  miles,  as  the  crow 
flies,  from  Klip-Drift,  and  Sir  H.  Barkly  received 
this  survey  on  the  "  2nd  of  November  "  it  is  needless  to 
point  out  that  his  agents  at  Klip- Drift  could  not  have 
received  his  consequent  views  and  instructions  in 
time  to  act  on  the  "  Wi  of  November"  .Railways  and 
telegraphs  do  not  extend  beyond  Wellington,  some  50 
miles  from  Cape  Town,  and  the  mail-cart  requires  eight 
or  nine  days  for  the  journey  to  Klip-Drift. 

In  his  despatch  to  Earl  Kimberley,  Sir  H.  Barkly 
goes  on  to  say : — 

"  This  survey  was  made  with  great  care  (0),  the  latitude  and  longi- 
tude of  the  three  principal  places,  David's  Graf,  Du  Toit's  Pan, 
and  Platberg,  having  been  first  ascertained,  and  it  would  appear  from 
it  that  the  (b)  old  Mission  Station  at  Platberg  lies,  according 
to  the  scale  annexed,  28  miles  North  and  by  East  of  the  locality 
assigned  to  it  in  the  Natal  Map." 

Upon  examination,  this  survey  proves  to  be  falla- 
cious and  inaccurate  ;  (a)  the  latitude  and  longitude  is 
either  incorrect,  or  the  survey  is  not  delineated  accord- 
ing to  those  observations,  (b)  Moreover,  instead  of 
the  real  Platberg  being  taken  for  one  (the  Northern) 
terminal  point  of  the  line,  the  "  old  Mission  Station," 
28  miles   distant,  N.    22°  30'  E.,   has  been  wrongly 


Copy  t  /"frYrr/sty  /h.  rn  a  sarv&  mccde>  byJf  '&  wrye,  fc&Ulaszs, 


DIAGRAM      G 


To  fact  Page  397  Chaj:.  XVI.  _ 


INACCURACIES.  397 

used ;  no  doubt,  in  order  to  get  the  line  further  to  the 
East,  so  as  to  include  the  "  dry  diggings.'' 

We  will  now  notice  the  grave  errors  in  this  "  survey 
made  with  great  care  : ,J*  The  annexed  diagram  G.  is 
a  literal  copy  of  the  plan  which  appears  in  Sir  H. 
Barkly's  despatch. 

The  position  of  the  two  terminal  points  of  the  line 
is  given  as : — 

"Platberg 25°  51'  E.     ..        28°  2'  S< 

David's  Graf     . .      . .  25°  20'  E.      . ,       29°  6'  S." 


Diff.  of  longitude..    —31'  1°    4'     Diff.  of  latitude. 

Which  gives  a  distance  of  81|-  English  statute  miles, 
from  point  to  point ;  whereas,  according  to  the  chart, 
Platberg  is  placed  only  78  miles  from  David's  Graf! 
Nearly  3^  miles  W.  by  S.  of  the  position  according  to  the 
astronomical  observation !  Or,  to  start  from  Platberg, 
then  David's  Graf  is  placed  by  Mr*  Gilfillan  3|  miles 
E.  and  by  N.  of  its  position  by  latitude  and  longitude  ! 

The  position  of  Du  Toit's  Pan  is  given  as : — 

«Du  Toit's  Pan..        .     25    28'  E.         ~  28    42'  S. 

David's  Graf     ...     25    20'  E.         . .         29°     6'  S." 


Diff.  of  longitude. .  8.  24'.  Diff.  of  latitude. 

Which  gives  a  distance  between  the  two  places  of 
29  English  miles.  But  on  the  chart  Du  Toit's  Pan  is 
marked  only  26  miles  from  David's  Graf!  And  either 
it  is  3  miles  S.W.  of  its  observed  position,  or  David's 
Graf  is  3  miles  N.E.  of  its  latitude  and  longitude,  and 
considering  how  near  the  "  dry  diggings,"  are  to  the 
line,  the  difference  of  even  one  mile  is  highly  important. 

*  Vide  p.  25,  Blue   Book,   "  Further  correspondence  respecting  the 
affairs  of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope." — London,  February  6th,  1872. 


398       SIR  h.  barkly's  irreconcilable  surveys. 

Besides  which,  as  the  parallels  of  latitude  and  longi- 
tude are  not  marked  on  this  plan,  it  is  utterly  impos- 
sible that  the  position  of  any  given  place  can  be 
accurately  shown,  according  to  parallels  which  do  not 
exist.  To  fix  the  position  of  a  place  by  astronomical 
observation  and  calculation,  it  is  absolutely  essential 
that  the  performer  should  have  an  accurately  com- 
piled chart,  with  the  parallels  of  latitude  and  longitude 
exactly  defined;  and,  failing  this,  the  only  possible 
way  to  make  a  correct  map  is,  on  a  small  scale,  by 
construction,  or  actual  trigonometrical  measurement 
(regardless  of  latitude  and  longitude),  as  Mr.  De  Villiers 
has  done,  and  who,  moreover,  has  publicly  offered  to 
submit  his  Field-book  to  the  inspection  of  any  sur- 
veyor for  verification  ! 

In  addition  to  the  discrepancies  between  the  given 
latitude  and  longitude  of  the  three  places,  and  the 
actual  positions  in  which  they  are  marked  on  Mr. 
Gilfillan's  plan,  there  exists  in  Diagram  H  (Mr. 
Orpen's  survey  for  Sir  H.  Barkly)  a  still  more  crushing 
proof  of  the  gross  errors  pervading  one  or  the  other. 
As  Mr.  Orpen's  survey  contains  the  parallels  of  latitude 
and  longitude,  and  seems  to  be  enlarged  from  existing 
maps,  with  the  required  localities  added,  it  is  probable 
that  his  survey  is  the  most  accurate  of  the  two.  But, 
wherever  the  error  exists,  it  is  excessive,  and  utterly 
destroys  the  value  of  both  the  only  two  surveys  upon 
which  Sir  H.  Barkly  founds  his  claims  to  the  "  dry 
diggings."  The  following  comparison  of  the  latitudes 
and  longitudes  given  by  Mr.  Gilfillan,  and  taken  by 
calculation  and  measurement  from  Mr.  Orpen's  survey, 
the  reader  can  easily  verify  upon  reference  to  Dia- 
grams G.  and  H. 


25°  E 


Co/cry  /rem •  Jf' r  Frccnc/^t jS.  Orpesvb  survey  of  a/t^e  Zirve/  /rYrrrv  J?ccm*x/i 


28°  & 


DIAGRAM    H 


29°  S 


Mrj>^KZ/S4!S&lisz^ 


0  V  £rt9fyti)Stn£u£x &le* 6S\'1L 


HO  PET 


To  /ace  Page  399  Chap.  XFI. 


MR.  GILFILLAN    VerSUS    MR.    ORPEN. 


399 


Mr.  Gilfillan' 
Positions. 


Platberg 


C  25°  51'  E. 
(.  28°    2'  S. 
Ditto r  25°  51'  E. 

„       (  28°    2'  S. 
/   25°  28' E. 


DuToit'sPan 


David's  Graf 


28°  42'  S. 
25°  20' E. 
29°     6'  S. 


Positions  taken  from 
Mr.    Orpen's    Survey. 


Platberg 
or  Paar- 
deberg 

The  old 

Platberg 

Mission 

Station 


Du  Toit's 
Pan 


25°  23'  E. 
28°  17'  S. 


28°    48'   S. 


Discrepancies. 


28'  Diff.  of  longi- 


15' 

37' 


tude. 
of  latitude. 


of  longi- 
tude. 
6'  ,,    of  latitude. 


24' 


6' 


of  longi- 
tude. 

of  latitude. 


vid's  f 
raf     | 


David 
G 


25c 
29c 


5'     E.   15'  „     of  longi- 
tude. 
7'     S.  i    1'  „     of  latitude. 


Comment  upon  the  above  figures  is  needless.  I 
leave  the  two  Surveyors  and  Sir  H.  Barkly  to  reconcile 
how  they  can  such  immense  discrepancies ;  it  is  suffi- 
cient for  my  purpose  to  prove  the  entirely  worthless 
and  unreliable  nature  of  the  only  surveys  on  which  the 
Governor  depends. 

Further  condemnation  of  Mr.  Gilfillan' s  plan  exists 
in  the  fact  that,  instead  of  taking  Platberg,  a  hill  on 
the  left  bank  of  the  Vaal  (which  he  names  "  Bass 
Kop  ")  for  one  of  the  terminal  points  of  the  line  he 
wishes  to  define,  he  starts  from  what  is  called  "  the 
old  Platberg  Mission  Station,"  but  which  is  a  place 
that  has  never  been  known  as  a  boundary  beacon. 

Moreover,  it  would  be  interesting  to  know  by  what 
means  Mr.  Gilfillan  obtained  his  observations ;  espe- 
cially the  longitude  of  the  places — whether  by  chro- 
nometer, lunar  observation,  or  some  approximate 
method.     As  the  least  error  in  the  work  would  lead  to 


400  TRICKS   TO   RETAIN   THE   DIAMOND    FIELDS. 

a  mistake  of  some  miles,  and  the  boundary  line  runs 
north  and  south,  but  a  small  inaccuracy  would  place 
the  dry  diggings  east  or  west  of  the  line. 

In  a  despatch  dated  "  Bloemfontein,  April  24th, 
1872,"  Mr.  F.  K.  Holme,  Government  Secretary  of  the 
Free  State,  enclosed  a  copy  of  Mr.  De  Villiers'  survey 
to  the  Government  of  the  Cape  Colony.  From  the 
Colonial  Secretary's  reply,  dated  "  Cape  Town,  May 
9,  1872,"  we  take  the  following  extract : — 

"  With,  regard  to  the  plan  of  the  line  between  David's  Graf  and 
Platberg,  transmitted  with  your  letter,  I  am  to  point  out  that  an 
essential  preliminary  to  the  accurate  definition  of  the  line  is  an  exact 
determination  of  its  terminal  points,  as  to  which  the  information  in 
possession  of  this  Government  leads  to  a  conclusion  at  variance  with 
that  which  would  appear  to  be  held  by  the  Government  of  the 
Free  State.  His  Excellency  is  not  prepared  to  admit  that  the  position 
of  David* s  Graf  is  (as  given  in  the  plan  under  notice)  to  the  south  of 
the  Riet  River  (a),  while,  as  regards  the  opposite  extremity  of  the 
line,  there  is  perfectly  trustworthy  evidence,  in  His  Excellency's 
opinion,  to  identify  the  real  Platberg  with  the  eastermost  of  the  two 
mountains  (b)  put  forward  in  the  plan  under  that  name.  It  will 
further  be  clearly  essential  to  decide  to  what  point  in  the  real  Platberg 
the  line  should  run,  seeing  that  (even  according  to  the  plan  which 
you  have  furnished)  if  the  North-eastern  extremity  of  the  range  were 
adopted, — as  Sis  Excellency  understands  is  claimed  by  Captain  Water- 
boer — instead  of  the  South-western  peak,  as  taken  by  Mr.  De  Villiers,  (c) 
Du  Toit's  Pan  would  be  found  to  fall  within  the  line  claimed  as  the 
boundary  of  West  Griqualand." 

It  can  readily  be  believed  that,  having  already 
stolen  the  diamond  fields,  the  Colonial  Government 
would  not  allow  a  mere  boundary  line  to  take  back  the 
richest  part  of  the  plunder.  As  the  accuracy  of  Mr. 
De  Villiers'  actual  survey  cannot  be  disputed,  nothing 
is  easier  than  to  assert  that  it  is  based  upon  wrong 
points — that  the  terminal  points  of  the  line  he  has 
measured  off  are  not  those  he  should  have  taken  !     It 


SIR    H.    BARKLY'S    INACCURATE    OBJECTIONS.  401 

is  only  consistent  with  the  modus  operandi  that  has 
been  pursued  by  the  late  Colonial  Government  through- 
out the  progress  of  their  designs  upon  the  diamond 
fields,  viz.,  to  deny  everything  asserted  by  the  Free 
State,  whilst  affording  unlimited  credit  to  Waterboer's 
mere  ipse  dixit — or  what  purports  to  proceed  from  him, 
as  most  of  his  arguments  have  really  originated  in 
Cape  Town  ! 

Now,  with  regard  to  Sir  H.  Barkly's  alleged  objec- 
tions to  the  line  defined  by  Mr.  De  Villiers : 

(a)  "  His  Excellency  is  not  prepared  to  admit  that  the 
position  of  David's  Graf  is  to  the  south  of  the  Riet 
River." 

1.  On  the  "  survey  made  by  Mr.  George  Gilfillan, 
(Diagram  G),  whom  I "  (he)  "  employed,"  David's 
Graf  is  placed  "  to  the  south  of  the  Riet  River"  through 
that  able  surveyor  having  taken  the  Modder  for  the 
Riet. 

2.  But  on  the  survey  specially  made  (Diagram  H) 
in  1872,  subsequent  to  that  of  Mr.  De  Villiers,  by  Mr. 
Francis  H.  S.  Orpen,  whom  Sir  H.  Barkly  had 
appointed  Surveyor-General  of  the  plundered  terri- 
tory, there  can  be  no  doubt  about  the  matter,  for 
David's  Graf  is  distinctly  placed  some  little  distance  "  south 
of  the  Riet  River" — the  northern  branch  of  the  stream 
being  rightly  named  the  Modder. 

3.  Moreover,  on  Mr.  De  Villiers'  plan,  David's  Graf 
is  not  placed  u  to  the  south"  but  on  the  north  bank  of  the 
Riet  River!  (as  shown  in  Diagram  F.) 

(6)  "  In  his  Excellency's  opinion  there  is  perfectly  trust- 
worthy evidence  to  identify  the  real  Platberg  with  the  eastern- 
most of  the  two  mountains  put  forward  in  the  plan  under 
that  name  " — (the  "  Paardeberg  "  on  Diagram  F). 

d  2 


402         the  governor's  boundary  juggle. 

If  so,  how  was  it  that,  in  Mr.  G.  Gilfillan's  plan, 
"  made  with  great  care,"  quite  another  place — "  the  old 
Mission  Station"  about  fifteen  miles  from  Paardeberg,  the 
"  easternmost  of  the  two  mountains"  and  more  than  twenty 
miles  from  the  westernmost,  came  to  be  taken  and 
defined  as  Platberg,  "  the  real  Platberg  "  ? 

How  came  it  to  pass  that  Sir  H.  Barkly 's  surveyors 
chose  such  different  and  widely  separate  "  real  Plat- 
bergs,"  and  that,  on  the  9th  of  May,  1872,  Sir  H. 
Barkly  declared  for  Paardeberg  ? 

The  reply  is  very  simple.  Mr.  Orpen  had  doubtless 
ascertained  the  inaccuracy  of  Mr.  Grilfillan's  plan,  and 
had  possibly  found  that,  were  the  line  to  be  drawn 
from  either  "  the  old  Mission  Station  "  or  the  Platberg 
used  by  Mr.  De  Villiers,  the  rich  "  dry  diggings" 
(for  which  all  the  trouble  was  being  taken)  would  be 
left  outside  the  line,  and  to  the  Free  State,  therefore, 
naturally  enough,  he  selected  Paardeberg — and  it  is 
very  doubtful  whether  he  had  any  information  to  act 
upon  beyond  his  own  pleasure,  considering  Water- 
boer  never  had  a  boundary  or  corner  beacon  within 
less  than  100  miles  of  Platberg!  At  all  events,  he 
shifted  the  positions  of  both  Platberg  and  David's  Graf 
sufficiently  far  to  the  east  to  make  sure  of  the  "  dry 
diggings."  Sir  H.  Barkly  simply  denied  "  the  old 
Mission  Station  "  of  Mr.  Gilfillan  and  the  Platberg  of 
Mr.  De  Villiers  because  it  had  become  plain  by  the 
latter' s  survey  that  if  the  line  were  drawn  from  either 
of  those  places  to  the  real  David's  Graf,  the  "  dry 
diggings"  would  fall  to  the  Free  State;  whilst  he 
pitched  upon  the  "  north-eastern  extremity  of  the 
range  "  (Paardeberg),  ex  necessitate  rei,  as  the  only 
way  to  include  them  within  the  spurious  boundaries 


THE  DEAD  MOVE  AND  THE  HILLS  WALK.     403 

of  "  Griqualand  West,"  or  that  illegal  State  of  which 
as  yet  he  is  the  monarch,  disposer,  or  dictator.  It 
would  at  least  be  interesting  to  ascertain  how  Mr. 
Orpen  ascertained  that  Paardeberg  was  Platberg — 
how  he  discovered  that  poor  old  David's  bones  had 
become  endowed  with  locomotion — and  whether  he 
received  instructions  from  the  Cape  Government  as  to 
where  the  line  from  Eamah  via  David's  Graf  to  Plat- 
berg should  run,  or  those  late  rulers  took  their  cue 
from  him. 

(c)  Mr.  De  Villiers  chose  the  highest  peak  of  Paarde- 
berg, as  was  natural,  considering  that  not  an  iota  of 
evidence  exists  as  to  any  spot  or  part  of  that  redoubt- 
able mountain  having  ever  before  been  used  for  a 
boundary  point.  Furthermore,  he  only  used  it  to 
illustrate  the  fact  that,  even  commencing  the  line 
from  there,  one  half  of  the  "  dry  diggings  "  would  be 
within  the  Free  State,  though,  at  the  same  time,  as 
all  the  inhabitants  of  that  part  well  know,  Platherg  on 
the  Vaal  was  the  true  point,  was  the  only  mountain 
that  had  ever  been  used  (years  ago)  as  a  boundary 
point  by  the  natives,  and  was,  in  fact,  that  which  he 
also  selected. 

Reference  to  Diagram  H  (an  exact  copy  reduced 
from  Mr.  Orpen's  survey)  will  show  that  not  only  has 
the  " north-eastern  extremity"  of  Paardeberg  been 
chosen  as  a  terminal  point,  but  that  David's  Graf  has 
been  moved  seven  or  eight  miles  to  the  east  of  the 
position  assigned  to  it  both  by  Messrs.  De  Villiers  and 
Gilfillan  and  that  the  southern  extremity  of  the  line 
is  also  commenced  at  least  five  miles  to  the  east  of 
Eamah,  where  it  should  start  from ! 

Nothing  can  more  plainly  prove  the  mala  fides  of  the 

2  d  2 


404  THE    REAL    PLATBERG    IDENTIFIED. 

late  Colonial  Government  in  the  diamond  fields  ques- 
tion than  this  juggling  with  the  principal  boundary 
line. 

So  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  ascertain,  that  Govern- 
ment never  obtained  any  evidence  as  to  the  position 
of  David's  Graf  and  Platberg  beyond  its  own  wishes, 
and  the  unsupported  assertions  of  Waterboer. 

In  support  of  the  Platberg  claimed  by  the  Free 
State  (as  an  argument  to  prove  that  in  any  case  the 
"  dry  diggings"  belong  to  it),  I  quote  some  of  the 
existing  facts : — 

1.  At  the  meeting  at  Nooitgedacht,  on  the  19th 
August,  1870,  Mr.  W.  0.  Corner,  one  of  the  witnesses, 
declared  that  the  old  line  "  between  Adam  Kok  and 
Cornelius  Kok  "  was — 

"  Between  Platberg  and  Ramah.  I  mean  Platberg  on  the  Vaal 
Rivera— (Bee  page  160,  Chapter  VI II.  J 

2.  At  the  same  time  and  place  Mr.  Andrew  H.  Bain 
deposed — 

"I  heard  that  Platberg  was  one  of  the  beacons  of  Cornelius 
Kok,  above,  along  the  river." — {See page  6,  "  Minutes  of  Meeting  at 
Nooitgedacht") 

3.  At  Campbell,  on  the  11th  December,  1863, 
before  the  Free  State  Land  Commission  (and  long 
before  diamonds  were  discovered),  the  witness,  Arie 
Samuels,  in  defining  the  boundaries  of  Cornelius  Kok's 
territory,  gave  Platberg  as  one  corner  beacon — 

"Then  through  the  river  to  Platberg,  on  Vaal  River." — [Seep.  8, 
"Minutes  of  Meeting"  at  Nooitgedacht.) 

4.  In  the  alleged  supplementary  treaty  (Annexure 
No.  40,  reviewed  in  Chapter  IX.)  between  Waterboer 


FURTHER    PROOF    AS    TO   PLATBERG.  405 

and  Mahura,  produced  by  the  former  at  Nooitgedacht, 
the  latter  thus  refers  to  Platberg — 

"  To  Platberg,  on  the  east  lank  of  the  Vaal  River,  as  our  territorial 
corner  beacon." — {Treaty,  dated  Tawns,  18th  April,  1864.) 

5.  By  referring  to  Diagram  E,  Chapter  XIV.,  it  will 
be  seen  that  in  1852,  Mr.  Green,  then  British  Resident 
at  Bloemfontein,  placed  Platberg  on  the  south-east,  or 
left  bank  of  the  Vaal  River. 

6.  In  an  award  given  by  Lieut. -Governor  Keate  of 
Natal,  dated  "  October  17th,  1871,"  as  arbitrator  in 
the  claims  of  Waterboer,  sundry  Kafir  tribes,  and  the 
South  African  Republic,  there  occurs,  in  his  definition 
of  boundaries,  the  following  passage  : — 

"  The  boundary  line  .  .  .  shall  follow  the  course  of  the  Vaal 
River  to  a  point  on  the  said  river,  at  which  a  straight  line  drawn  from 
the  mountain  called  Platberg,  situated  on  the  southern  bank  of  the 
said  Vaal  River" — {Seep.  26,  "  Further  correspondence  respecting  the 
affairs  of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  6th  February,  1872)." 

7.  Sir  H.  Barkly  in  a  despatch  to  Earl  Kimberley, 
dated  "  October  31,  1871,"  thus  refers  to  Platberg— 

"  And  I  was  further  able  .  .  .  to  place  the  former  question  beyond 
all  doubt  or  cavil,  by  referring  to  the  decision  thus  patiently  and 
laboriously  arrived  at,  whereby  Platberg  on  the  Vaal  River,  is  made 
the  point  at  which  Waterboer's  northern  boundary  terminates,  and 
equally  the  point,  therefore,  to  which  his  line  from  Ramah,  on  the  Orange 
River,  northwards,  must  converge  /" — {See p.  27,  Idem.) 

8.  In  a  despatch  to  President  Brand,  dated  "  Octo- 
ber 23,  1871,"  Sir  H.  Barkly  repeats  the  above  state- 
ment, that : 

"  The  self -same  Platberg"  is  "  the  proper  termination  of  Waterboer's 
boundary  line  on  the  south  bank  of  that  river" — {See  p.  30,  Idem.) 


406  IDENTITY   OF  PLATBERG   CONTINUED. 

9.  On  the  map  accompanying  Lieut. -Governor 
Keate's  award,  Platberg  is  placed  on  the  left  bank  of 
the  Vaal  River,  exactly  where  Mr.  De  Villiers  places  it. 
[See  p.  50,Ide?n). 

10.  In  a  proclamation,  dated  "  4th  November, 
1871,"  issued  by  the  Barolong  and  Batlapin  Kafir 
Chiefs,  there  occurs,  in  a  boundary  definition,  the  fol- 
lowing passage: — 

"  The   mountain  named  Platberg,  situate  on  the  south  bank  of  said 
Vaal  Rivers'1 — {See  p.  63,  Idem.) 

11.  In  the  Treaty  between  the  Griqua  Captains, 
Cornelius  Kok  and  Jan  Bloem,  "  dated  August  8th, 
1840,  Platberg  is  also  described  as — 

"  Platberg  on  the    Vaal  River.11 — {See  p.  120,   "  Correspondence  re- 
specting the  affairs  of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  1871.") 

12.  Before  leaving  the  Orange  Free  State,  in  May, 
1872, 1  called  at  the  farm  Frankfort,  belonging  to  Mr.  P. 
Swarts  in  the  Boshof  district,  and  from  half  a  dozen  of 
the  oldest  residents  in  that  part  of  the  country  obtained 
their  unanimous  testimony  as  to  the  identity  of  Platberg 
with  the  hill  of  that  name  selected  by  Mr.  De  Villiers. 
One  and  all  referred  to  the  place  as  "  Platberg  on  the 
Vaal  River,  on  the  left  bank"  Several  of  these  farmers 
declared  that  they  had  known  the  country  and  resided 
in  it  since  1840,  including  Messrs.  P.  Swarts  and  P. 
M.  Otto,  owner  of  the  adjoining  farm.  Mr.  Botha  de- 
clared that  he  had  known  Platberg,  and  resided  in  the 
country,  for  thirty -five  years.  All  testified  that  this 
Platberg  had  originally  (when  the  white  settlers  first 
came  to  those  parts)  been  a  corner  boundary  or  beacon 
between  the  Chiefs,  Cornelius  Kok  and  David  Dantzer. 


david's  graf.  407 

Paardeberg,  sometimes  called  Platberg,  they  also 
knew,  but  best  as  "  Archibald's  station"  ;  but  quite  a 
different  place,  inland,  and  never  known  as  a  beacon. 

Any  quantity  of  similar  evidence  is  at  my  hand,  but 
I  consider  I  have  quoted  quite  enough  to  prove  that 
Platberg  is  a  hill  upon  the  left  bank  of  the  Vaal,  and  iden- 
tical, therefore,  with  that  taken  by  Mr.  De  Villiers. 
Moreover,  we  have  just  seen  that  Sir  H.  Barkly  him- 
self placed  it  there  "  beyond  all  doubt  and  cavil.n 

How,  then,  has  he  managed  to  choose  Paardeberg, 
(when  he  found  a  line  drawn  from  the  other  would 
give  the  "  dry  diggings"  to  the  Free  State),  a  range  of 

hills  SOME  DISTANCE  INLAND,  NO  LESS,  INDEED,  THAN 
TWELVE  TO  THIRTEEN    MILES  ? 

In  corroboration  of  the  David's  Graf  claimed  by  the 
Free  State  (as  an  argument  to  prove  that,  even  if 
Waterboer's  boundary  were  rightly  drawn  from  thence 
to  Platberg,  the  "  dry  diggings"  still  belong  to  it),  I 
quote  from  some  of  the  evidence : 

1.  In  a  report  by  Major  Warden,  British  Eesident  at 
Bloemfontein,  dated  "  August  3,  1850,''  during  the 
time  of  the  Orange  River  Sovereignty,  occurs  the 
following  passage : 

"  It  became  necessary  to  define  clearly  that  portion  of"  (the 
Griqua  boundary)  "  pointed  at  in  Adam  Kok's  treaty,  viz,,  a 
line  from  Ramah  .  ...  to  David's  Graf,  A  litte  above  the  junction  of 
the  Riet  and  Modder  rivers" — (See  p.  44,  Annexures,  "  Minutes  of 
Meeting  at  Nooitgedacht") 

2.  In  the  Treaty  between  the  Griqua  Captains,  Cor- 
nelius Kok  and  Jan  Bloem,  and  the  white  settlers 
under  Mr.  Oberholster,  dated  "  8th  August,  1840," 
David's  Graf  is  thus  referred  to  : 

11  We  declare  it  is  with  our  consent  that  the  line  from  Earn  ah 


408  IDENTIFICATION    OF    DAVID'S    GRAF. 

with  a  straight  line  to  the  junction  of  the  Modder  and  Riet  rivers,  and 
thence  to  Platberg,  on  the  Vaal  Biver  ....  has  been  fixed." — (See 
p.  120,  Blue  Booh,  "Correspondence  respecting  the  affairs  of  the  Cape  of 
Good  Hope,"  1871.) 

David's  Graf,  being  at  u  the  junction"  of  the  two 
rivers,  has  always  been  known  as  the  middle  point  to 
which  the  line  was  drawn. 

3.  In  Sir  P.  Maitland's  Treaty,  as  Governor  of  the 

Cape,   &c,  with  the  Griqua  Chief,  Adam  Kok,  dated 

"  February  19th,  1846,"  the  position  of  David's  Graf, 

a  terminal  beacon  of  the  territories  of  the  contracting 

parties,  is  so  clearly  defined  as  to  establish  the  same 

beyond  all  question  : 

"  From  David's  Graf  at  the  confluence  of  the  Riet  and  Modder 
rivers ;  thence  "  etc. — See  p.  129,  Blue  Book,  No.  2,  "  Orange  River 
Correspon  dence, "  1851-54.) 

4.  This  last  evidence  is  so  unquestionable  and  irre- 
sistible that  I  need  only  further  point  out  that  in  many 
of  his  despatches  Sir  H.  Barkly  himself  describes  the 
place  as: — 

"  David's  Graf,  near  the  junction  of  the  Riet  and  Modder  rivers" — 
(Seep.  48,  "  Correspondence,"  and  p.  34,  "  Further  Correspondence  re- 
specting the  Affairs  of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,"  1871  and  1872.) 

5.  Twice  before  leaving  the  Free  State,  in  April 
and  in  June,  1872,  I  proceeded  to  Jacobsdal,  the 
nearest  village,  intending  personally  to  visit  David's 
Graf  and  see  for  myself  its  exact  position.  But  on 
each  occasion  I  found  the  information  existing  on  that 
point  at  Jacobsdal  so  ample  and  conclusive,  as  to 
render  my  proposed  journey  in  search  of  the  beacon 
quite  unnecessary.  The  inhabitants,  one  and  all,  de- 
clared that  David's  Graf  was  close  to  the  confluence  of 


WHY   MR.    ORPEN   SHIFTED   DAVID'S   BONES.  409 

the  Riet  and  Modder  rivers ,  distant  between  1  and  2 
miles,  whilst  it  was  something  over  10  miles  distant 
from  the  village.  Amongst  those  who  assured  me  as 
to  the  position  of  the  place,  I  may  mention  the  well- 
known  gentlemen,  the  Hon.  0.  J.  Truter,  Landdrost 
of  Bloemfontein ;  and  Mr.  Isaac  Sonnenberg,  of  Jacobs- 
dal  and  Hesse  Cassel,  who  informed  me  (amongst 
others)  that  he  had  often  seen  the  spot,  and  knew  it  well. 

As  Mr.  Orpen's  survey  is  the  only  existing  map 
which  places  David's  Graf  at  a  distance  of  9  J  miles 
from  the  junction  of  the  Riet  and  Modder  rivers,  and  only 
3  miles  from  Jacobsdal  (see  Diagram  H),  all  other 
maps,  including  Mr.  Gilfillan's  plan  and  those  con- 
tained in  the  Blue  Books,  showing  it  within  2  miles 
of  the  confluence,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  this  new 
and  fictitious  position  has  been  selected  simply  to 
make  the  line  therefrom  include  the  "  dry  diggings." 

We  have  already  noticed  the  fact  that  Sir  H. 
Barkly  "  is  not  prepared  to  admit  that  the  position  of 
David's  Graf  is  to  the  south  of  the  Riet  River,"  but  that 
his  surveyor,  Mr.  Orpen,  the  last  up  to  this  time 
(February,  1873)  to  issue  a  plan,  has  elected  to  place  it 
"south  of  the  Riet"! 

I  venture  to  maintain  that  I  have  proved,  by  as 
ample,  trustworthy,  and  perspicuous  evidence  as  exists 
on  the  subject,  the  actual  positions  of  both  David's 
Graf  and  Platberg,  and  their  identity  with  those 
approved  by  the  Government  of  the  Orange  Free 
State :  although,  be  it  remembered,  it  is  now  many 
years  since  the  resuscitated  line  between  those  points 
became  cancelled,  obsolete,  and  passed  over  by  the 
lawful  progress  and  advance  of  the  Free  State  boun- 
daries. 


410      MORE   OF   SIR    H.    BARKLY's   MISREPRESENTATIONS. 

Having  shown  that  the  interregnum,  brigand  Junta, 
or  form  of  government  appointed  by  the  usurping 
Dictator,  Sir  H.  Barkly,  over  the  diamond  fields,  is 
utterly  illegal,  the  success  or  failure,  popularity  or  un- 
popularity, of  that  regime  is  a  matter  of  slight  import- 
ance, and  cannot  affect  the  question  as  to  its  right  to 
be  present,  to  exist.  Nevertheless,  as  expediency 
(the  want  of  a  "  regular  government ")  has  been  used 
by  its  inventors  as  an  argument  for  its  creation, 
whilst  its  popularity  has  been  asserted  to  prove  its 
success,  I  undertake  to  question  those  views. 

In  a  despatch  to  Earl  Kimberley,  dated  "  Cape 
Town,   November  17,  1871,"  Sir  H.  Barkly  stated:— 

"I  am  happy  to  be  able  to  inform  your*  Lordship  that  .  .  . 
the  declaration  of  her  Majesty's  sovereignty  over  the  diamond 
fields  was  everywhere  hailed  with  intense  satisfaction  by  the  great 
majority  of  the  population." 

In  a  further  despatch  to  the  same  minister,  dated 
December  16,  1871,  he  states: — 

"I  am  glad  to  be  able  to  reportf  .  .  .  that  everything  is 
going  on  quietly  and  satisfactorily  at  the  various  diamond  diggings." 

Throughout  the  official  correspondence  are  many 
such  assertions,  but  the  above  are  sufficient  to  prove 
that  Sir  H.  Barkly  reported  to  her  Majesty's  Go- 
vernment the  success  and  popularity  of  his  usurped 
authority. 

That  the  Governor  persisted  in  such  false  state- 
ments, long  after  events  at    the  diamond  fields  had 

*  Vide  p.  48,  Blue  Book,  "  Further  correspondence  respecting  the 
affairs  of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope," — London,  1872." 

f  Vide  p.  53,  Blue  Book,  "  Further  correspondence  respecting  the 
affairs  of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,"— London,  1872. 


UNPOPULARITY   OF  THE   INTERREGNUM.  411 

illustrated  the  failure  and  unpopularity  of  his  Dic- 
tatorship's Junta,  and  the  miserable  fiasco  in  which 
the  administration  of  government  had  resulted  under 
the  new  regime,  is  fully  proved  by  the  following 
extract  from  his  speech  at  the  opening  of  the  Cape 
Parliament  on  the  18th  of  April,   1872:  — 

"  19.  Her  Majesty's  sovereignty  was  therefore  proclaimed,  and 
carried  into  effect  with  the  full  assent  of  the  diggers,  and  the  Govern- 
ment has  since,  in  spite  of  no  inconsiderable  difficulties,  leen  pru- 
dently and  firmly  administered.'11  * 

In   commenting  upon  the   Governor's  speech,  the 

Diamond  News,  in  its  issue  of  "  May  the  1st,  1872," 
states : — 

"  Of  the  three  very  brief  paragraphs  which  immediately  concern 
ourselves,  the  first  is  one  of  simple  self-gratulation ;  the  diggers 
and  others,  the  inhabitants  of  Griqualand,  accepted  British  rule 
with  heartiness : — of  the  excessive  and  daily  increasing  dissatisfaction 
with  that  rule,  Sir  Henry  says  nothing,  and  possibly  knows  nothing, 
as  for  the  Commissioners  to  report  the  prevalent  feeling  would  be  an 
act  of  suicide  of  which  they  are  not  likely  to  be  guilty." 

The  Diamond  News  was  always  a  strenuous  advocate 
for  the  extension  of  British  rule  to  the  fields. 

With  regard  to  the  "  full  assent  of  the  diggers,"  as  a 
resident  at  the  fields,  I  declare  that  any  such  assent  was 
neither  sought  nor  given.  If  I  remember  rightly,  on  the 
morning  of  the  11th  of  November,  1871,  a  small  party 
of  Cape  mounted  police,  with  two  or  three  officials, 
suddenly  rode  into  the  market  places  of  the  respective 
"dry  diggings,"  and  proclaimed  Her  Majesty's 
sovereignty  (as  per  Proclamation  of  the  27th.  October). 
At  the  New  Rush,   by  accident,  I  and   some    dozen 

*   Vide  "  Cape  Argus,"  Cape  Town,  April  18th,  1872,  and  "  Diamond 
News,"  Du  Toit's  Pan,  April  27th,  1872. 


412         the  governor's  junta  not  popular. 

white  men  happened  to  be  present  when  the  party 
rode  up.  No  one  knew  their  purpose  until  the  British 
flag  was  suddenly  hoisted  to  a  pole  in  the  Main  street, 
and  one  of  the  officials  hurriedly  read,  or  rather 
muttered,  something  from  a  paper  in  his  hand.  In 
ten  minutes  the  performance  was  over ;  more  than 
150  persons  were  never  present  (and  they  were  mostly 
Kafir  servants) ;  nor  were  the  sentiments  and  wishes 
of  the  "  diggers"  ever  given  an  opportunity  for 
expression.  Was  that  "  the  full  assent  "  Sir  H.  Barkly 
states  ? 

The  Diamond  Field,  published  at  Klip  Drift,  in  its 
issue  of  "  May  30,  1872,"  states  :— 

"  There  can  be  no  question  that  the  population  of  the  diamond 
fields  is  dead  against  annexation  to  the  Cape  Colony.  If  any- 
thing like  a  plebiscite  could  be  had,  the  votes  would  be  as  nine 
to  one  against  being  brought  under  the  domination  of  the  Cape 
Town  Government  .  .  .  Even  the  Free  State  Government  would 
poll  two  votes  to  one  if  the  Cape  Town  Government  were  the 
only  other  candidate.'' 

Annexation  to  the  Cape,  we  must  remember,  is  that 
to  which  Sir  H.  Barkly's  efforts  were  given,  and  to 
which  he  so  mendaciously  dared  to  declare  that  "  the 
diggers,"  the  great  majority  of  the  population,  had 
"  everywhere  given  full  assent,"  and  expressed  "  entire 
satisfaction  "  ! 

In  December,  1871,  only  about  a  month  subsequent 
to  the  expulsion  of  the  Free  State  authorities,  and  the 
establishment  of  Sir  H.  Barkly's  Junta,  lynch-law 
broke  out,  riot,  and  general  insecurity  prevailed. 
(See  the  Diamond  Neivs,  January  17  th,  March  20th,  July 
17th,  etc.,  1872.) 

The  Diggers'  Gazette,  published  at  the  "  New  Rush," 


BARKLY   RULE  V.    FREE    STATE   RULE.  413 

in  its  issue  of  April  26th,  1872,  commenting  upon  the 
Governor's  attempt  to  annex  the  diamond  fields  to  the 
Cape,  states  : — 

"No  one  would  ask  for  a  continuance  of  the  existing  state  of 
things.  Incompetency  alone  would  desire  the  perpetuation  of  such  a 
failure  as  our  Commissioners  have  made  of  British  rule  on  these  fields. 
Upon  this  matter  we  have  spoken  freely  before,  and  so  have  our 
local  contemporaries." 

Under  the  Free  State  Government  neither  disorder 
nor  lynch-law  were  so  much  as  dreamt  of.  Diggers' 
committees  managed  the  regulations  and  details  of  the 
working,  at  the  different  fields,  and  gave  general  satis- 
faction. Police  (then  thought  inefficient  by  a  few) 
paraded  the  different  camps  by  day  and  by  night,  and 
never  failed  to  preserve  law  and  order.  All  this  was 
very  quickly  altered  by  the  usurping  authorities,  sub- 
sequent to  their  forcible  installation  of  themselves. 

In  the  Diamond  News  of  December  16th,  1871,  occur 
the  following  remarks : — 

"In  the  Diamond  News  lately  appeared  a  picture  of  Dji  Toit's 
Pan  at  night,  as  it  was  under  the  acknowledged  very  inefficient 
Free  State  police,  and  in  contrast,  as  it  is  now  that  these  are 
withdrawn.  The  comparison  was  not  creditable  to  the  energy  or 
administrative  abilities  of  our  present  rulers ;  and  a  comparison 
of  Free  State  rule  with  Cape  rule  on  other  matters  would  not 
tell  much  more  favourably  for  the  latter  ...  The  much-belauded 
British  Government,  which  was  to  sot  all  things  right,  and  do 
so  much  for  the  diggers,  has  reduced  the  camps  to  their  primitive 
state  of  self -protection.1'' 

In  the  Diamond  News  of  July  10th,  1872,  eight 
months  after  the  establishment  of  Sir  H.  Barkly^s  rule,  are 
to  be  found  the  following  observations  : — 

"  Bobberies  are  becoming  so  frequent,  that  to  chronicle  in  detail 
those  only  which  are  brought  to  our  notice  is  more  than  our  limited 


414  LYNCH  LAW   AT  THE   FIELDS. 

space  will  admit  of  .  .  .  Numerous  petty  thefts  are  also  taking 
place  with  impunity.  This  is  certainly  a  nice  state  of  things !  And 
the  question  naturally  arises,  how  long  is  it  to  continue  ?  Thieves, 
white  and  black,  practised  and  desperate,  and  yet  no  niyhtpolice  to 
check  them  in  their  unlawful  proceedings  !  Are  we  to  have  no  night 
police  ?  or,  are  the  rogues  who  infest  the  camps  to  continue  to  have 
that  scope  and  freedom  which  they  appear  now  to  enjoy  ?  " 

Nothing  can  be  argued  in  palliation  of  this  state 
of  things,  simply  because  no  such  lawlessness  existed 
under  the  ousted  Free  State  rule,  and  it  was  the 
bounden  duty  of  those  who  by  force  replaced  the 
latter  to  provide  (at  least  in  eight  months)  a  Govern- 
ment as  effective. 

In  the  Diamond  News  of  July  13th,  1872,  the  follow- 
ing comments  are  made  upon  the  existing  agitation 
and  inquietude : — 

"  In  the  revolution  which  is  approaching  .  .  .  the  aim  is  com- 
plete autonomy ;  the  power  to  make  our  own  laws,  the  levying 
of  our  own  taxes,  and  the  disposal  of  our  own  revenues.  .  .  . 
the  creation  of  Griqualand  into  a  separate  colony  .  .  .  We  un- 
derstand also  that  the  diggers  and  other  inhabitants  .  .  .  will  be 
prepared  to  raise  any  funds  that  may  be  necessary  for  the  attain- 
ment of  those  liberties  of  which,  at  present,  they  feel  themselves  to  he 
deprived." 

On  the  16th  July,  lynch-law  and  riot  again  broke 
out  to  an  extensive  and  alarming  extent  at  the  "  New 
Rush,"  the  principal  "  diggings." 

Commenting  thereon,  in   its   issue  of  "  July  19th, 

1872,"  The  Digger^   Gazette  remarks  : 

"  So  long  as  Judge  Lynch  holds  his  court,  and  enforces  his 
penalties  unchecked,  the  whole  apparatus  and  machinery  of  law- 
ful authority  might  as  well  have  no  existence.  Authority  fails  to 
demonstrate  its  claim  to  respect,  while  men,  smarting  from  a 
sense  of  injury,  take  the  law  into  their  own  hands  only  because  of  the 
proved  inefficiency  of  the  powers  that  be  to  protect  them  where  their 


RIOT   AND   DISORDER.  415 

interests  are  in  sorest  need  of  protection.  Day  after  day,  and 
night  after  night,  one  or  another  quarter  of  the  camp  is  regaled 
with  the  edifying  spectacle  of  natives  flogged,  tents  in  flames, 
white  men  surrounded  by  angry  crowds  hardly  to  be  restrained 
from  exemplifying  their  vengeance  with  a  short  shrift  and  a 
stout  cord.  We  are  no  apologists  for  this  state  of  things,  hut 
we  cannot  shut  our  eyes  to  the  mischief  which  has  made  it  almost  a 
necessity.  .  .  .  No  excellence  of  the  magistrate  is  a  set-off  against 
the  want  of  such  law,  system,  and  police,  as  our  circumstances  demand 
and,  failing  which,  there  is  no  prospect  for  us  but  that  terrorism 
which  is  the  Hind  revolt  against  anarchy." 

The  Diamond  News,    in   its  issue  of   "  July   20th, 
1872/'  observes:  — 

"  The  pressure  of  news  upon  our  columns,  and  the  reports  of 
meetings  held,  and  the  scenes  enacted  nightly  at  mass  gather- 
ings, in  this  time  of  excitement,  uproar  and  confusion,  occupy 
nearly  the  whole  of  our  leading  columns  .  .  .  We  sincerely  hope 
that  the  firebrand  will  soon  be  extinguished,  or  else  it  is  much 
to  be  feared  the  end  of  the  beginning  will  be  frightfully  detri- 
mental to  the  safety  and  prosperity  of  the  unoffending." 

On  the  19th  of  July,  1872,  a  great  mass  meeting  of 
diggers  was  held  at  the  "  New  Rush"  Market  Place, 
when  the  following  resolution  (amongst  others)  was 
carried  with  acclamation : — 

"That  this  meeting  is  of  opinion,  in  view  of  the  prevailing 
disturbances  in  this  camp,  that  the  Commissioners  should  at  once, 
in  conjunction  with  the  Diggers'  Committee,  make  such  modi- 
fications of  the  present  unsuitable  state  of  the  law*  as  will  pre- 
vent as  far  as  possible  the  thefts  of  diamonds  by  native  labourers, 
and  their  purchase  by  unprincipled  dealers,  as  well  as  make 
such  other  alterations  in  the  law  as  will  promote  the  public 
welfare." 

In  its  issue  of  "  August  7th,  1872,"  the  Diamond 

*The  primary  cause  of  the  outbreak, 


416      ANNEXATION  TO  THE  CAPE  UNPOPULAR. 

News  refers  to  the  prevailing  riot  and  disorder  in  the 
following  words  : — 

"  We  contemplate  with  horror  the  fact  of  lynch  law  becoming 
a  power  in  our  midst,  but  our  chief  censure  falls  upon  those  who  allowed 
the  grievances  which  gave  rise  to  the  rioting  to  rise  and  oppress  this  com- 
munity so  long.  .  .  With  an  astonishing  obtuseness  and  a  persistency 
almost  criminal,  the  nurses  and  guardians  of  this  new  Colony 
refused  to  recognize  in  it  a  young  giant.  .  .  The  hope  (if  ever  it  has 
seriously  been  entertained)  to  achieve  so  ill-assorted  an  alliance  as 
tacking  us  on  to  the  Cape  Colony  .  .  must  at  once  and  completely 
be  given  up.  .  .  The  more  palpable  effects  of  this  interference  with 
arrangements  established  when  this  country  was  in  the  hands  of  the 
Free  State  Government,  alone  suffice  to  show  the  need  of  local  self- 
Government." 

From  the  Cape  Argus  and  Standard  and  Mail  reports 
of  the  debate  in  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope  Parliament, 
commencing  on  the  5th  of  June,  1872,  and  resulting 
in  the  withdrawal  of  the  Bill  to  annex  the  diamond 
fields,  I  select  the  following  extracts  : — 

Mr.  Merriman  (previously  a  staunch  supporter  of 
Government),  in  the  course  of  a  most  graphic,  logical, 
and  able  speech,  observed — 

"  The  fields  .  .  had  been  annexed,  and  a  form  of  Government  set 
up  than  which  nothing  could  be  more  grotesque.  .  .  A  sort  of  irre- 
sponsible commission  "  (the  brigand  Junta)  "  had  been  set  up,  the 
members  of  which  disagreed,  and  were  answerable  to  no  one;  any- 
thing more  absurd,  or  that  worked  worse,  he  could  not  conceive.  The 
Orange  Free  State  had  given  the  people  some  sort  of  a  representa- 
tion, but  the  first  act  of  our  Government  had  been  to  do  away  with  all 
Committees,  and  the  consequence  was  that,  the  people  were  taxed  by 
an  irresponsible  body.  .  .  The  Orange  Free  State  had  appointed  a 
responsible  officer  .  .  who  was  efficient  .  .  whilst  we  had  esta- 
blished a  court  twenty  miles  away  from  the  mass  of  the  people, 
involving  ruinous  expense  to  suitors,  as  if  the  only  object  of  the 
British  Government  had  been  to  cause  huge  law  expenses." 

The  extensive    appointment   of  numberless  office- 


THE  "DIGGERS"  DETEST  BARKLY  RULE.      417 

seekers,  was  probably  one  of  the  main  objects  the 
late  Colonial  Government  had  in  view  when  they 
seized  upon  the  diamond  fields. 

Mr.  Knight  stated  that  "  one  great  reason  why  he  was  opposed 
to  annexation  was,  that  nine-tenths  of  the  people  at  the  fields  would  hold 
up  their  hands  for  the  removal  of  the  present  Government,  because  they 
believed  that  they  had  much  better  government  before  they  were   annexed" 

Mr.  Buchanan,  in  an  able  and  eloquent  speech, 
declared — 

"  He  had  himself  made  it  his  business  whilst  on  a  visit  to  the 
diamond  fields  to  walk  from  camp  to  camp,  and  from  sorting-table 
to  sorting-table,  and  converse  with  the  diggers,  in  order  to  ascertain 
their  sentiments  on  different  matters ;  and  the  conviction  he  had 
arrived  at  was,  that  there  was  a  high  degree  of  feeling  against  the 
British  Government.'''' 

During  a  subsequent  debate  in  the  Cape  Parliament, 
upon  a  motion  of  Mr.  Orpen's,  respecting  self-rule  for 
the  fields, 

"Mr.  Solomon  said,  as  far  as  he  could  gather,  the  diggers  did  not 
want  to  have  anything  to  do  politically  with  the  Cape  Parliament.'1'' 

"Mr.  J.  H.  Brown,  as  the  latest  arrival  in  the  house  from  the 
fields,  said  that  the  diggers  look  with  the  utmost  abhorrence  on  the  Govern- 
ment there  at  present,  and  that  it  was  as  much  disliked  as  it  deserved 
to  be."— {Diggers'  Gazette,  12th  July,  1872.) 

In  view  of  Sir  H.  Barkly's  announced  intention  to 
visit  the  fields,  in  order  to  try  and  arrange  matters 
there,  the  Diamond  News,  in  its  issue  of  August  28th , 
1872,  remarked : 

"  That  there  must  be  a  reform  of  the  diamond  fields  Government 
— a  thorough  change  of  both  principle  and  plan — is  as  plain  as  plain 
can  be." 

In   the   month   of  August,   1871,  President  Brand 

2  E 


418  POPULARITY    OF    FREE    STATE  RULE. 

visited  the  diamond  fields  ;  we  present  the  following 
extracts  from  the  addresses  presented  to  him  by  the 
"Diggers'  Committees,"  to  show  the  contrast  between 
the  satisfaction  experienced  during  Free  State  rule, 
and  the  detestation  in  which  the  usurping  Government 
was  held : — 

"Sir, — We,  the  undersigned  Diggers' Committee  of  DuToit'sPan, 
beg,  upon  this  your  Honour's  first  visit  to  the  fields,  to  offer  our 
very  hearty  welcome,  and  trust  and  feel  confident  that  the  presence 
of  your  Honour  at  Da  Toit's  Pan  will  go  far  to  promote  the  good 
order  and  peace  of  the  diggers  as  a  community,  already  in  a  great 
measure  existing,  and  further  establishing  the  good  feeling  existing 
let  ween  your  Government  and  the  diggers." 

il  May  it  please  your  Honour, — We,  th9  undersigned,  members  of 
the  Diggers'  Committee  of  Pniel  .  .  .  must  thank  your  Honour's 
Government/or  the  peace  and  quietude  that  prevailed  here,  even  when  the 
camp  contained  several  thousand  inhabitants.  Nothing  could  have 
exceeded  the  energy  and  public  spirit  of  the  Government  servants  during 
the  period  these  diggings  have  been  opened." 

So  much  for  Sir  H.  Barkly's  self-gratulation  and  false 
assertions,  that  his  rule  "was  every ivhere  hailed  with  intense 
satisfaction  "  ;  with  u  the  full  assent  of  the  diggers  ;  "  that 
u  everything  was  going  on  quietly  and  satisfactorily" ; 
and  that  the  Government  had  "  been  prudently  and  firmly 
administered"  ! 

Arter  his  little  bill  to  formally  annex  the  diamond 
fields  had  been  rejected  by  the  Cape  Parliament,  and, 
considering  the  state  of  revolution  existing  against  his 
Junta  at  the  fields,  Sir  H.  Barkly  determined  upon 
personally  visiting  the  scene  of  disorder,  as  before 
stated,  to  shirk  off  the  responsibilities  he  had  incurred, 
to  appease  the  dissatisfied  diggers,  and  yet  retain  the 
diamond  fields  by  the  only  remaining  resource — sub- 
mission to  their  demands,  unlimited  soft  sawder,  the 


BARKLY  RULE  AT  THE  DIAMOND  FIELDS.     419 

concession  of  self-government,  and  the  constitution 
of  the  diamond  fields  into  a  separate  Crown  Colony ! 
The  corrupt  and  mercenary  practices  prevailing 
amongst  those  who  concocted  the  seizure  of  the 
diamond  fields  has  been  well  dilated  upon  in  a  late 
number  of  the  Diamond  News,  "  October  8th,  1872." 

"As  Gazette  after  Gazette  comes  out,  claimants  for  land  look 
anxiously  to  see  'what  about  the  land  '  ?  and  all  the  information  the 
Gazette  gives,  is,  that  David  Arnot,  Esq.,  claims  half  the  country,  and 
that  Francis  Orpen,  Esq.,  the  surveyor,  has  decided  that  £30  must 
be  paid  down  before  any  claimant  can  have  his  case  considered !  It 
is  Arnot  and  Orpen  and  Land ;  and  Land  and  Orpen  and  Arnot,  week 
after  week.  They  appear  to  have  been  made  for  each  other,  and  for 
nothing  and  nobody  else.  Half  a  newspaper  is  filled  up  with  lists 
of  claims  of  the  aforesaid  David,  and  it  is  getting  plainer  and  plainer 
every  day  that  the  paramount  Chief  of  Griqualand  West  must  not 
have  been  Mr.  Waterboer,  but  Arnot — for  the  stipulations,  the  claims, 
and  the  whole  bargains  are  Mr.  Arnot's,  and  nobody's  but  his.  The 
impression  abroad  is,  that  the  British  protection  ivas  invoiced,  not  for 
British  interests,  nor  for  the  interests  of  Britons  who  were  at  work  on  the 
fields,  but  for  the  sake  of  two  gentlemen  who  are  holding  the  reins  with 
more  power  than  any  private  individual  ought  to  have  been  permitted  to 
have  in  the  Government  of  a  country  .  .  .  Whoever  heard  of  a  Govern- 
ment binding  itself  to  give  the  surveyorship  of  a  new  state  to  any 
one  man  ?  Mr.  Francis  Orpen  is,  no  doubt,  a  first-class  man  in  his 
profession .  .  .  but  that  does  not  warrant  any  Government  agreeing  that 
he,  and  he  only,  shall  have  the  surveying  of  the  territory  entirely  in  his 
hands.     Everyone  knows  what  that  must  come  to"  ! 

I  have  but  little  more  to  add.  I  took  up  my  pen  in 
the  cause  of  right  and  justice,  to  expose  to  English- 
men the  way  in  which  England's  strength  and  honour 
has  been  prostituted  out  in  South  Africa  in  order  to 
wrong  and  plunder  the  Orange  Free  State  of  its 
diamond  fields.  The  Government  of  that  State  has 
vainly  appealed  to  the  equity  and  justice  of  Her 
Majesty's  Ministers.     To  the  British  Parliament,  and 


420  THE   OBJECTS    OF    "  ADAMANTIA." 

the  British  public,  therefore,    this   statement  of    the 
case  is  submitted. 

The  following  are  the  points  I  have  endeavoured  to 
prove,  and  I  confidently  leave  them  to  the  judgment 
of  my  readers : — 

1.  That  the  country  (known  as  the  diamond  fields) 
seized  ostensibly  for  Waterboer,  from  the  Free  State,  by 
the  late  irresponsible  Government  of  the  Cape,  never, 
by  right  of  chieftainship,  inheritance,  treaty,  or  pos- 
session, belonged  to  him. 

2.  That  the  Orange  Free  State  rightfully  and 
legally  acquired  that  territory, — east  of  the  Vetberg 
line,  and  up  to  the  Vaal  Eiver,  as  well  as  the  Campbell 
lands. 

3.  That  the  information  on  the  subject  supplied  to 
Her  Majesty's  Government  by  the  Governors  of  the 
Cape  has  been  utterly  false. 

4.  And  that  the  seizure  and  annexation  of  those 
lands  by  Governor  Sir  H.  Barkly  is  illegal,  unjust, 
and  unauthorized  in  every  particular. 

Not  the  least  of  the  evils  which  must  ensue  from 
the  policy  complained  of,  is  the  death-blow  given  to 
federation — that  combination  of  all  the  South  African 
States  and  Colonies  into  one  great  and  powerful  do- 
minion desired  by  all  sensible  and  patriotic  men  whom 
the  question  concerns.  Personally,  I  am  well  aware 
of  the  exasperated  feelings  entertained  by  both  the 
people  of  the  Orange  Free  State  and  the  South  African 
Republic,  since  the  gross  injustice  with  which  both 
have  been  treated  by  the  British  and  Colonial  Govern- 
ments in  the  matter  of  the  diamond  fields  and  Water- 
bocr.  Those  rich  and  flourishing  states  have  become 
thoroughly  alienated. 


OBJECTIONS    TO    THE   CROWN   COLONY   SCHEME.      421 

There  is  another  question  it  would  become  British 
statesmen  to  consider,  viz.,  the  fact  that,  should  arbi- 
tration (and  it  must  occur,  sooner  or  later)  decide  in 
favour  of  the  Free  State  in  the  matter  of  the  territory 
seized  for  Waterboer,  there  will  be  either  restitution  of 
the  territory  and  compensation  for  its  illegal  detention 
to  make,  or  its  further  retention  must  be  secured  by 
purchase,  and  compensation  given  as  in  the  other  case. 
Considering,  too,  that  the  diamond  fields  are,  or  have 
been,  perhaps,  the  richest  in  the  world,  it  will  not  be 
a  trifling  sum  demanded. 

It  is  earnestly  to  be  hoped  that  the  British  Parlia- 
ment will  refuse  to  sanction  Sir  H.  Barkly's  last 
scheme, — the  attempt  to  create  the  Diamond  fields  into  a 
Crown  Colony, — at  least  until  after  the  question  as  to 
whom  the  territory  really  belongs  has  been  legally  de- 
cided by  a  properly  and  fairly  constituted  court  of 
arbitration.  And  that  such  arbitration  must  result  in 
favour  of  the  Free  State  no  sane  man  acquainted  with 
the  facts  of  the  case  can  doubt. 

1.  In  conclusion,  I  would  ask,  as  Sir  H.  Barkly 
declares  that  the  late  Chief  Cornelius  Kok  was  not 
independent,  but  was  Waterboer's  subordinate,  and, 
therefore,  that  all  purchases  of  land  from  him  by  the 
Free  State  are  null  and  void,  how  it  is  that  from  1840 
to  the  death  of  Cornelius  Kok  in  1858 — a  period  of  no 
less  than  eighteen  years,  and  during  which  time  the 
Free  State  purchased  about  eighty  of  its  143  farms 
over  the  line  now  seized  for  Waterboer — this  latter 
never  prevented  those  sales,  and  tint  no  protest  against 
them  is  upon  record  in  a  single  case  ? 

2.  How  it  is  that  the  subsequent  sales  of  farms  by 
Adam  Kok,  as  heir  and  successor  to  Cornelius,   from 


422  A    FEW    QUESTIONS    FOR   SIR    H.    BARKLY. 

1857  to  1862,  were  also  never  protested  against  or 
prevented  by  Waterboer,  and  that  not  until  sometime 
afterwards,  in  1864,  when  Mr.  David  Arnot  made  his 
first  appearance  upon  the  scene,  was  the  sale  of  the 
"  open-grounds  "  by  Adam  Kok  on  the  26th  December, 
1861,  objected  to? 

3.  What  does  Waterboer  receive  for  making  over  the 
diamond  fields  to  the  late  Cape  Government  ?  And 
how  could  he  legally  make  such  transfer  of  land  which 
he  has  yet  to  prove  was  ever  occupied  by  him,  which 
certainly  was  not  in  his  occupation,  but  de  facto  and  de 
jure,  in  possession  of  the  Free  State  at  the  very  time  he 
made  the  transfer? 

4.  As  Sir  H.  Barkly  forcibly  dispossessed  the  Free 
State  of  its  143  farms  upon  the  plea  that  they  had  been 
illegally  purchased  from  Cornelius  Kok,  and  his 
successor,  Adam  Kok,  to  whom  he  declares  they  did 
not  belong,  but  to  Waterboer ;  by  what  law  or  right 
has  he  confirmed  the  actual  individual  holders  of  those 
farms  in  their  possession  because  they  were  so  (as  he  before 
declared  illegally)  purchased? — (See  the  6th  and  lad  of 
his  Proclamations  of  October  27th,  1871,  annexing  the 
territory). 

Whether  the  Orange  Free  State  was  rightly  in  oc- 
cupation of  the  land  or  not,  it  was  invaded  by  armed 
force  in  time  of  profound  peace,  and,  before  any  legal 
right  had  been  proved  for  Waterboer,  it  was  outraged 
and  violently  plundered  of  territory  it  had  possessed 
for  a  number  of  years.  How  applicable  are  the  words 
of  the  perspicuous  ancient  historian,  written  nearly 
nineteen  centuries  ago,  "  Civitas  ea  in  libertate  est  posita, 
quae  suis  stat  virtbus,  non  ex  alieno  arbitrio  pendet ''  / 
Whilst  such  invasions  and  robberies  of  its  territory  are 


OUR    FOREIGN    POLICY.  423 

perpetrated  with  impunity  in  the  name  of  Great  Britain, 
the  Orange  Free  State  is  free  but  in  name. 
All  that  the  Free  State  asks  for  is  justice, — the  "  fair- 
play"  Englishmen  are  so  prone  to  talk  about, — a  fair 
and  equitable  arbitration  of  the  question  in  dispute, 
and  a  proper  compensation  if  it  be  proved  that  she 
has  been  wronged,  and  her  territory  violated.  Know- 
ing that  country,  and  indignant  at  the  treatment 
it  has  experienced,  I  seek  by  these  pages  to  aid 
in  obtaining  justice  for  it ;  though  it  seems  doubtful 
whether  anything  but  fear,  the  dread  of  retaliation, 
can  make  us  honest,  as  a  nation,  in  our  dealings  with 
others.  Britannia  seems  now  to  have  sunk  to  the 
degraded  position  of  readily  fighting  any  little  power, 
weak  enough,  and  quite  as  promptly  and  pusillani- 
mously  submitting  to  any  big  antagonist,  strong  enough ! 
If  this  policy  continues  much  longer,  it  will  become 
necessary  for  Englishmen  to  change  their  name  when 
they  cross  the  waves  they  certainly  no  longer  rule. 


THE     END. 


396^^> 


BiriDk, 


T.  MAY  3     H/4 


PLEASE  DO  NOT  REMOVE 
CARDS  OR  SLIPS  FROM  THIS  POCKET 

UNIVERSITY  OF  TORONTO  LIBRARY 


DT 

745 

L5 


Lindley,  Augustus  F 
Adamantia